the only good argument you bring up in this video against hydrogen is possible ice from the water. (though I often see water from gasoline cars too) I'd still drive hydrogen if I didn't live in Norway. salt would probably also be a bitch
In Switzerland we had 5 Busses running on H2 and I was able to visit the fueling station. They did produce the H2 from Water and electricity on site but also had extra trailers from industry production as the system could be too slow to get enought H2 for the daily needs of the 5 busses. I also had a chance to ride with such Bus.. that was a really good feeling when you compare to diesel busses and I could not understand why they gave up after 5 years! But nobody thought it would be possible to create Electric Bus that can keep up with power an range withe the fuelcell Busses.. but the end of H2 usage was due to high-cost of operating H2 busses . It was worth trying, to show that it does work as a backup for the time when diesel will not be allowed any longer! The storage of H2 isnt as easy as many thought.. so at the end, Batteries win.
For cars, that's correct. For trucks, planes, ships , that's another story. You can basically convert those to H2 and run the same day-to-day operations. Batteries can't scale up like that.
Agreed. Long haul trucking and freight railroad routes are fixed. It's easier to build a few, larger, H2 generation/refueling stations along these routes over many. There may be a reasonable argument in using this concept for future PHEVs, a battery to cover the majority of our daily driving, and a H2 fuel cell as a x-country range extender. Less H2 infrastructure required in urban areas focusing more on interstates and highways.
Not yet. In every way possible electric vehicles are better than fossil burners, except for energy storage. The real trick is going to be coming up with a battery tech that can come close to, or exceed, current diesel designs. You don't need to store as much energy as diesel, as the electric drivetrains are more efficient, but if say you use 1/4 the energy of diesel to move the vehicle, then you need a battery that has 1/4 the energy density of diesel, for example (simplified for brevity). Hydrogen might be a good stepping stone for large transport, but the energy cost of creating that hydrogen is a real issue, as is the usual source (not clean). I actually think hydrogen might make for a good plane fuel source, as it is very light, and generally has few but well serviced points of demand (airports), and so would make total sense for that application. And, if like the Orkney Islands are trying to do, we use unused capacity from renewables to generate it, then it would be super clean, and pretty cheap.
Richard Roberson The Orkney Islands are looking to use excess wind power to generate hydrogen for their ferry to mainland UK. As it's excess anyway could be cost effective, but otherwise likely not.
I guess the main reason not to buy hydrogen is that it isn't green at all because you need about 5x more energy for the same range in comparison to electric cars
Very little hydrogen is made by electrolysis. Most of it is produced by stripping carbon off of natural gas. The long term idea is that you'd then sequester that carbon underground but that's something I don't think we'll see at scale for 10-20 years. In the mean time renewables are dirt cheap per kWh and EVs can actually work well with their intermittent supply.
Hydrogen in this refuling station is made by electrolysis. With abt 99% Hydro on the electric grid in Norway this argument is not valid. Hydrogen can be a solution to large energy storage, but it all depends on efficiency.
But you only need 1.5KWh to run the hydrogen car unlike a Tesla with 100kWh. Hydrogen works very well in low temperatures. But green Hydrogen is far away.
The problem with hydrogen is it cannot ever be efficient compared to just putting the electricity in a battery. It's not a solution to large energy storage either; compressed gas, pumped hydro, batteries are solutions. They're all efficient processes. Hydrogen cannot ever be.
I believe the best use for hydrogen is for big trucks, and then ships. Very useful for them. And maybe even planes. Thing on the ship's is, you can have a tiny amount of power from solar panels perhaps recharging the batteries and filling up the hydrogen.
Planes is unlikely as there is no existing electric jet engine. So unless you think it's okay for planes to go a quarter the range at a quarter the speed, I don't think it's a solid choice.
@@Skylancer727 Electric planes exist. It will happen. It will just take longer. Flammable liquid is not advisable... that goes for petrol and hydrogen.
@lachlanB323 yeah electric "planes" exist, but electric "jets" do not. There aren't any existing electric jet engines and to go back from the jet engine means planes that go half to a quarter the speed with only half the range for the same energy. So even if we had batteries as energy dense as jet fuel it would still have half the range. And not sure what you mean "flammable liquids not advisable". It's what we use right now and planes make up less than 1% of pollution. And what's wrong with hydrogen? Hydrogen burns completely clean with nothing but water left behind. And hydrogen fuel cells don't even require filtering NoX like combustion does. There's nothing wrong with hydrogen, it's just too expensive for consumer use.
I love how Optimus looks, There is a Model X near me that looks stunning, blue paint, black wheels, and also P100D! It looks almost like Optimus but has black wheels
About 10-20 years ago, we would have said the same about battery powered cars.. the cells will only last a very limited cycles, and they were heavy. Chargers and charging were inefficient and were really slow. And look where we are now. Personally I'd like to see as much development in different solutions as possible. For now it's useless to normal consumers, but that does not mean that it will always be like that. Hydrogen hasn't had it's Elon Musk yet that just sat down and said "ok, we are gonna develop and push this" speeding up the development of that tech. (although smartphones and wearables have clearly had a big impact in battery improvements too) Personally I'd prefer it to batteries, specially if they'd make it a semi-closed loop where you can just plug in and turn the water that was generated from driving back into hydrogen again. Electrolysis isn't really efficient enough to do that yet, but who knows what happens in the future, and that can change the entire playing field again. Research is good, gaining experience with this type of tech is good.. marketing this to the average consumer at this time is not.. I'd love to see where it goes, but I think in the end there's a reasonable chance it will beat battery-electric... not in the next 5 years or so.. but at some point.. it will.
It's true that 10-20 years ago EVs had no fast chargers, had poor range and cost too much. But one fundamental feature never changed, which was that electricity is everywhere. If both EVs and hydrogen cars started competing 10-20 years ago, hydrogen might have won by 2018. The problem is that hydrogen cars never started the race back then. They (might) be starting now which is way too late. EVs already have a great lead. That's why hydrogen is bullshit.
One thing you didn't address--hydrogen is a very volatile explosive. EV batteries practically eliminates that part of safety concern, by just being inherently very hard to blow up. hydrogen-powered ones, will ALWAYS have a greater risk than even gasoline & diesel cars, simply because hydrogen can blow up so so easily. hydrogen tanks are durable, sure. but in the event where there is a fuel leak somehow, conventional cars don't even catch fire unless exposed to extreme heat, or well, fire; EV cars, it'd be an upsetting & expensive annoyance, hardly more; hydrogen, ONE spark, boom.
@Falcon Windblade: actually, hydrogen isn't much of an explosive until you mix it with oxygen. if stored properly and with no oxygen mixed in, it's not dangerous at all. (unless you decide to inhale it, which is a different topic ;) ) There have been accidents with hydrogen prototypes, and basically people had expected to see what you mentioned. but it didn't. If it's a small leak, the hydrogen is so much lighter than the air around it, that it will go almost straight up. Compare that to gas pooling under the car that you might be trapped in. *yikes* Secondly there have been cases where the hydrogen got released because the container it was in exploded. and no fire was started. That is because the gas expands so fast, that it pushes the oxygen away from the site of the accident before rising in the air, and no oxygen means there's no real way for a fire to start.. of course it can explode and burn if all the criteria are met, but so can fossils and EV's. Check google images for Hydrogen car fire to see a comparison of a gasoline leak and hydrogen leak burning (test done around 2000 iirc) And Bjorn, the Hindenburg actually started with the "skin" burning. the material the zeppelin was coated in would burn at the smallest spark. then when that burned through the pockets of hydrogen and air was mixing in.. yes.. that was not a good thing to have happen. Also there are signs that metal beams might have broken inside the airship releasing the hydrogen from the bags it was in and mixing with outside air Also the Hindenburg was designed to be operated with Helium which the Americans refused to provide. The fact that they had to run it with hydrogen while not being designed for it didn't really help either. If you look at the disaster footage by the way, it kind of shows the advantage of hydrogen.. you can see the gas and flames going upward.. if the burning carcass hadn't fallen down on people, or if the carriage had been designed to take the weight of the hot metal and burning cloth falling on top of it, the people inside would probably have gotten away a lot better. also the fuel tanks containing fuel for the engines leaking on the ground didn't help the survival chances much either.
The market kinda already has. Hydrogen has been talked about for at least two decades and from time to time looked really promising, while electric always felt shaky, more of a necessity downgrade because pollution. But then all of a sudden a decade ago, electric gained a stable foot in the door with sports- and luxury cars firmly established. A niche, but a very important one, as those categories felt like the last ones it could succeed in. It proved to people it really works and even works good if done right. It paved the way to more mainstream cars, and now we're on the brink of having good and affordable electric cars for the masses.
Hydrogen cars aren't bad, the infrastructure just isn't ready yet. There will be electric vehicles powered by lithium for about a decade or so more while they build up the infrastructure for them. The same way old hydrogen tanks in cars used to explode, they made them safer and new ones cannot explode. The production facilities like nuclear facilities are slowly becoming more and more durable and unlikely to have accidents.
Its even sillier when you compare the consumption to produce the hydrogen. You need about 55kwh to produce 1kg of it. Thats 55kwh/80km or 69kwh/100km or 690wh/km And the peeing: It dumps about 8l of water / 100km. So when 100k hydrogen cars / day pass a highway, that means they drop 8000l of water - on a track of 1 km. I would definitely watch a live cam to this :)
The reason that you cannot refuel hydrogen at home is the main reason why energy providers and the government want that. ;-) It´s all about the control of supply and the costs of energy. (Follow the money)
Nope this is because it's expensive as fuck to produce and store enough amount of hydrogen. And your logic is dumb as fuck, it consumes more energy to create hydrogen than storing it into lithium-ion cells. So it would be better for people who want to "control of supply and the costs of energy" to force people creating hydrogen (I will not talk about the storage part) with electricity than giving authorisation to citizen to use lithium-ion cells....
yes, I think so too. BUT H2 makes sense where weight matters, so Semis or Planes. Also a funny side-Note, the Company I work at built a prototype of a Home-Hydrogen-Refueling Station, it was scrapped later but it may be continued by a different company now.
You don't refuel with hydrogen at home because it is stupidly dangerous. Compressing the gas needs serious amounts of cooling. The equipment would have to be inspected regularly. Then there's the issue of your garage exploding because the odourless gas you've generated was ignited by static from your clothes in the cold dry atmosphere.
I think some of you guys did not see the point in my comment. ;-) Of course, you are not able to refuel hydrogen at home. This is why suppliers and providers are happy about that, so they can take any price they want at the hydrogen stations. Otherwise if you have a PV at home you can generate your own solar energy and you are mostly independent. (less taxes etc.)
That's why oil and gas company try to portrait hydrogen as a Future fuel. It's very hassle a lot more than just install a charger at your garage (It's also a lot more louder cause you always got a pump running try to compress H2).
What about hydrogen plug-in-hybrids? 25 kWh battery plus hydrogen tank for longer trips? That way you can refuel at home for daily use and fast "charge" on longer trips. Yes, hydrogen is more expensive (cost- and energy-wise) atm, but once we have more renewables and with that higher fluctuations in energy supply, hydrogen (or methane since there are also methane fuel cells) is a good way to store large amounts of energy. It would be mostly the excess energy anyway. In my opinion that is a valid option and a good alternative to huge battery packs getting dragged around all day.
Most of the hydrogen produced today is by steam reformation of petroleum. Only a small percentage is from water as electrolysis is more expensive. What is one of Norway's biggest industries? Oil!
You are right about efficiency, but what about long term thinking? How bad will be for the environment after millions of batteries will get out of service? How will these be recycled? The good part of hydrogen here is that it is clean solution long term.. just my opinion..
Fuel cells degrade and wear out over time. Fuel cell vehicles also contain batteries that degrade even faster because they cycle so much. Hydrogen is not a solution.
The numbers on the graph near the end are optimistic for hydrogen in the electrolysis and in the conversion back into electricity in the fuel cell. The latter is about the same as an ICE engine with about 1/3 of the fuel value reaching the electric drivetrain. About 2/3 of the energy in the tank ends up as waste heat. Granted, some of that can be used to heat the car in cold weather. Another thing is the non-conductive coolant for the fuel cell itself. It is a very expensive consumable that has to be replenished at about $70-$100/10k miles (16,000 km) here in California. That is the price for 1 liter of coolant, pre-mixed with deionized water. Since it goes bad like brake fluid once opened, and the pre-mix is sold in that quantity, you don't get to pay for what you use if your car needs less when you take it in for this mandatory service. If your car needs more than a liter, you pay for 2 liters.
Another problem is that some hfc cars require a much higher pressure to refuel than the current fueling stations can provide. So you can only fill your tank with 50% of what the car is capable of holding... 😑
That's true, but that's really not an issue with hydrogen, it's more a teething pain you experience with new technologies. Like chargers always being out of order when you get to them for non-Tesla cars that don't have the supercharger network.
I'm pretty sure electrolysis 50-60% efficient, not 75%. They get 75% efficiency when they derive hydrogen from crude oil, something the world definitely doesn't need.
nah, wrong - "Considering the industrial production of hydrogen, and using current best processes for water electrolysis (PEM or alkaline electrolysis) which have an effective electrical efficiency of 70-80%, producing 1 kg of hydrogen (which has a specific energy of 143 MJ/kg or about 40 kWh/kg) requires 50-55 kWh of electricity" And if you actually listen, they create the Hydrogen from Hydro Electricity, not Oil
I am surprised and disappointed by how you completely missed the actual main point of a hydrogen cars over EV: batteries. I mean of course hydrogen is not competitive enough right now with EVs in the open market, mainly because it is not developed enough compared to EVs as you nicely pointed out. But the reason that we are working on hydrogen technology and fuel cells is not to compete directly with EVs, but rather to find a better and more ecological alternative to the EVs current lithium based batteries. Lithium batteries in fact have a big ecological impact and require a lot of materials to produce, while hydrogen can be potentially way cleaner with virtually no ecological impact if is produced with renevable energy sources. Reality is that EVs are the minority and for now we have enough lithium for them, but in the future that may not be the case (ignoring the envyromental impact the extraction of the metal causes). Hydrogen would solve that problem. Also the charging bit, come on who would want to plug in and wait for their car to charge when they could refuel in a couple of minutes fully with hydrogen? As of now it's not a big enough advandage to justify a hydrogen car and their other problems (again, it's still a technology that is researched and developed a lot), but if it was more on par, this wouldn't even be a question. So while you are indeed making a good point considering the exact situation as of now, you are failing completely in even considering the bigger picture.
Batteries will last the lifetime of the car. And even after the car is done, the cells can either be re-used or recycled. Tesla has shown that batteries will last at least 500k km: electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/ I bet you don't own an EV yourself. That's why you don't understand the charging part. You own a fossil car, right? Most people use the car for local runs. And then there's no need to fast charge the car. And for long trips, you fast charge while you take a break anyways. This has been explained over and over again.
About the charging: are you like Bjorn, who drives 1000 km every other day? (Exaggerated, but I guess not that much) I don't want to wait at all, so I just plug in when I'm not using the car anyway, e.g. at home when I'm sleeping, or when I'm shopping, ... So, why should I wait for a few minutes every week or two? On a longer trip, with a gasoline car or a HFC car, you'll probably stand there, waiting for the tank to fill, then go to the bathroom, have a bite, have a coffee, etc. With a BEV, you get there, plug in, go to the bathroom, have a bite, have a coffee, go back to the car, unplug and you're on your way. And you probably pay only a fraction of the price per km driven as well. I somehow have doubts the price for hydrogen will come down that much. I'm also pretty sure the price for electricity will not rise that much, since even in Germany with not that many sunny hours, the production price for solar power has started to rival conventional generation (even including battery storage for times when the sun doesn't shine!) What was the advantage of the HFC car again?
The man tried to say that hydrogen cars are more ecological than EV cars because batteries are not so eco to produce, they need cobalt which is extracted somewhere in Africa and there is not enaugh cobalt on Earth to built batteries for every car! I know you are a Tesla fan, but you have to research a bit more to see the bigger picture!
Tesla fan or not, but people have look at the alternative, hydrogen can be extracted, in most energy efficient way, from hydrocarbons that leads to green house gases along with some water. But even more dangerous outcome of burning hydrogen in fuel cells is it takes away oxygen in the process of providing energy and locking away most precious of elements for life's existence oxygen into water. If we go ahead with hydrogen economy, we will set up humanity for a catastrophe. The Oxygen Depletion Problem, which would make Earth inhabitable.
krishna kishor bhat , the solution is not hydrogen fuel cells that produces electricity, but use the hydrogen as fuel directly, in an combustion engine, it burns quite well. regarding oxygen, all cars today consumes oxygen, the point is we need to produce more oxygen by protecting forests!
Once your realise that Hydrogen cars are basically Battery Electric Vehicles with an entire redundant fuel cell system built on top to charge the batteries, they make no sense. Why would you used hydrogen, which is expensive and incredibly hard to transport and store to charge up the batteries of your EV when you could charge it up from any outlet or the thousands of fast chargers all over the place? A hydrogen ev needs a substantial battery, because the fuel cell doesn't produce enough power for acceleration, the electric motors need to drain that energy from the battery mostly.
You’re questions are all answered in this commentary. “The fuel cell does not have enough acceleration” wrong that depends on the size of the cell relative to the payload. A battery is not necessary it is just practical at this point. ‘Expensive” I make mine from solar!. NG (natural gas) is cheap and abundant here in the US and the conversion is efficient and clean (cracking NG in a reformer fuel cell sequesters the Co2 into solid waste (graphite a byproduct that can be sold). Don’t make your conclusion based on current pricing. “Hard to transport”? I guess you are referring to the pressure for liquification? NG is moved as a gas in pipe lines at ambient temperatures in the US a majority of homes and businesses in The US have pipelines for NG. A home ceramic fuel cell can convert NG to LH for domestic use as well as mobile. At 65-95% efficiencies when heat waste provides hot water and heating or cooling for the home and electricity at lower rates than the utility.
I absolutely LOVE refueling my 2 EVs at home. With hydrogen cars (just like with fossil fuel cars) we would always be paying prices that are at the whim of big oil type companies.
Jose Sure, but they control far less than oil companies do. not to mention there's also the option for setting up solar panels, which are getting better & better these days, which in turn help cut recharging costs. you can't do that with the oil companies.
José Correia ... To some degree, the electric utility may control prices, but it's not the same. I can generate some of my own electricity using solar. Plus, our electric rates are regulated by a Public Utility Commission. The electric utility can't just jack up the price by 20% just because a holiday is approaching. Our local gasoline prices bounce around 10, 15, and 20% for no good reason. By purchasing an electric car, I've eliminated all those shenanigans.
José Correia in what country? They're not regulated in the US except by the forces of the local market, and in many cases, local whim. I recall several years ago in Phoenix when a quirk of the supply chain resulted in gasoline prices in Phoenix jumping to over $5/gallon while the national average had never even reached $2/gallon, catching the gas stations off guard and having to scramble to change their signs to be able to display prices of $2+per gallon. If prices were regulated, that never could have happened. I think you're confusing taxed with regulated. Oil drilling, refining, delivery, storage, and sale are highly regulated, but prices are not beyond the existence of things like OPEC.
The biggest problem with EV's is the resale value. In 5 years selling your model 3 will be like trying to sell your old flip phone to a smartphone customer. They will loose extreme amounts of value after driven off the lot and over the first few years with newer/longer range models come out.
Exactly. Some Norwegian tested the car. Rated range was 550 km but they managed to get only 350 km. That's about 50 % higher consumption than on paper: www.side3.no/motor/test-toyota-mirai-hydrogenbil/3423203698.html
+Bjørn Nyland, Henrix98 ment the consumption of the fossil fuel car... which is far from ideal 5l/100km, so the price of driving fossil fuel car is about one third more expensive as you calculated...
I drive a Skoda Rapid with a 1.2 litre petrol engine. Average consumption including lots of full throttle Autobahn driving (210Km/h top speed) is 6l/100. Engine is a 4 cylinder TSI and it has a 7 speed DSG transmission. Considering installing LPG/CNG on it as a Dutch company (Prins AutoGas) has developed a LPG-Di (directly injected LPG). Will have better range than BEV or HY car of similar size, and running costs will be much lower. Car is located in Poland where LPG/CNG is plentiful and cheap.
Arh, I do not buy that argument because you are unable to charge at home. I can think of many reason why hydrogen is better 1) the car weight less 2) no charging cables in the car 3) longer range 4) quick refill 5) and looking at this from an environmental point of view - the cobalt is found in deadly mines in Africa where people risk their lives for this, and 6) as you mentioned you lose 1% capacity for every 10.000km. Or what do you think?
1) Hydrogen cars are barely lighter than EVs. 2) So what? 3) Tesla Model S has the same range as a Toyota Mirai 4) Just charge at night at a public charger in your street. 5) Guess what, there is cobalt in the batteries of a fuel cell car and platinum in the fuel cell itself 6) Guess what, fuel cells degrade over time as well and last shorter than an EV battery
Björn...I usually agree with you on most thing. But for this one i think you need to do your homework. One thing you mention is that you charge at home over night. .. but many people don't have that option.
To this day the main Source of Hydrogen is Fossil methane gas. To get the Hydrogen you have to get rid of the Carbon which leads to CO2 Emissions. To get two Hydrogen molecules you basically produce one CO2 molecules.
The main problem with hydrogen is infrastructure... to transition from ICE to a better technology, the infrastructure has to be there. Electricity is almost everywhere... almost. Hydrogen is very limited. So you’d have to build the whole infrastructure out. Even if you don’t fill at home, all petrol stations need to be converted to hydrogen. Electric doesn’t require that
John P, hugely inefficient ? ICE=19% fuel cell=65% non mobile fuel cell 95% If you are discounting the energy conversion don’t forget the energy to mine and refine oil. And the fact that hydro electric,geothermal electric, solar, wind. Can be used in electrolysis . NG to Hydrogen is extremely efficient and cheap. The US has 100 years of NG energy at current gas usage. The oil industry flares it of as a nuisance Google and many other progressive Co. Have already paid back the capital investment on their Bloom box fuel cells within a year with the money they saved on electricity! The Bloom box reforms the Co2 out and it is collected as graphite.
The lack of round-trip efficiency is actually the most difficult, intractable problem for hydrogen. Various other things are real problems, but potentially solvable (for example, with storage in nanostructured metal hydrides). I can think of possible niches, maybe in large transport vehicles, or in stationary energy storage at high latitudes, but there are still difficult problems, and there are always other options that seem like much less trouble overall.
Electricity to make H2. Loss of power in the generation. H2 convert to electricity: loss of power. Cost to transport, distribute (geography of station) and inconvenience (we have 3 stations in San Jose California region, nearest to me is 5 miles): loss os range. Ugh. Tesla model 3 sits in the garage and charges. Will go over 300 mile on a charge (real time). Agree, if they started 30 or 40 years ago, maybe...naahh
Let’s see we pump oil out of the ground (energy pollution) flared of the NG (pollution then we ship (energy) it. Then we use heat to separate and refine it,(energy big time) additives and stabilizers (pollutants)then ship it (energy)to distribution sights then ship it(energy) to gas stations. The only good news is it was already in the ground! Oh bought or leased the land and ruined it!
sweinberger That's fair, tbh hydrogen cars don't make a huge. amount of sense, but to say they need similar infrastructure to petroleum, that hydrogen needs to be transported is inaccurate.
But those EV's have to haul around those heavy batteries. Got to look at the whole system result. I wouldn't want to sit still for a half hour to charge - and most people perceive time sitting still while traveling to be twice as long as it actually is.
Maybe a more objective starting point would have been a good idea when you've already made your own choice - by calling H2-cars bullshit because you're chosen differently isn't serious. Great that you've found heaven in your Tesla, but not all car owners have the ability to charge at home like you do. I live in an apartment and can't park my car underneath my windows having the extension cord dangling outside! As of now, I've got 6 kms to the nearest E-On charger, and 4 kms to the nearest Clever charger, how would that work for me in every day life...!?! I totally agree that H2-cars doesn't seem optimal with the distances that you have in Norway, but here in Denmark which isn't neally as far from one end to the other, you could drive a H2-car from one end to the other without even topping up the tank!! - And still, we've got 10 H2-stations here already!! :-D Hyunday is launching their new NEXO (which by the way is named after a Danish city, did you know that?) in Norway soon - you even filmed it at the airport in another video of yours. Here in Denmark we have to wait a little longer for the future of alternative fueled cars due to unclear taxation, but I'm defanetily going to try it when it arrives at the dealer :-)
RobertJLessard that is true now but if we support it the potential is utopian! Check the arguments. My first flat screen was $30,000! I remember all the naysayers in 2006 regarding EVs . We had engineers telling us it was impossible. It defies the laws of thermal dynamics Now we have EVs charging in 15 min and ranging 500 miles. The problem is not infrastructure or your argument it is the EV battery tec will be so good the HFC won’t get developed
Why so much hate on this video based on TRUE FACTS. People are too sensible to hear things they dont like, whether those are facts or just opinions. GOOD JOB Bjørn
It's hard to think Toyota didn't think of these arguments before they started pursuing Hydrogen propulsion technologies. They skipped on EVs. I think Hydrogen technology will improve much further to the point it becomes mainstream.
Most commercial hydrogen (over 95%) does not come from water (electrolysis) but from oil, gas and coal. One ton of hydrogen generates about 10 tones of CO2. So that is also a big minus for hydrogen.
Let's not forget that the hydrogen fuel tank has an expiration date which is not really that long. If you're thinking of keeping this kind of car for 10 or 15 years, you may actually be shocked that you have to replace the tank. Some owners are reporting nearly two to three thousand dollars for this replacement. This happens with any pressurized vessel, it will expire and you will have to replace it. And the case of these cars, I am fairly certain that the car will itself disallow you to put more fuel into the tank after a certain point.
People are convinced that we are highly connected to the filling up in five minutes model. But once you start every morning with a full tank the idea of taking even 5 minutes out of your day to drive to a gas station one or twice a week sounds like a total waist of time.
yea lost alot of respect for this guy in this video lol. theres no reason to be against hydrogen (until someone dies from crashing and their car exploding because of it) there are some reasons to be against electric cars, my main reason is the battery, the manufacture and transportation of these raw materials pollute alot, but make the battery 10% of the size and put a fuel cell in there and its much better. in countries with net positive energy it's totally viable to use electrolysis, I operate 2 electrolytes for hydrogen manufacture at work in Norway and we only have hydroelectric dams giving us power. If countries would swap out coal for wind/nuclear they could easily make hydrogen without damaging the environment
Nice that you made a video about it, but I have to contradict. Ithink H2 has still a future. 1. Hydrogen prices will drop as soon as more people will buy it. 2. Hydrogen cars will be cheaper as soon as they develop and more people buy them. 3. It doesn't overheat that fast. 4. A big Li-Ion battery takes so many ressources to be built, that Hydrogen cars will be better for the environment than EV's 5. Scientists claim that unused wind or water energy can be stored much better in hydrogen tanks (converted from H2O to H2) than in batteries. Actually, very much energy produced by wind turbines overnight isn't used and has to be wasted by turning off windmills. That's also a point for hydrogen. 6. Hydrogen stations will spread all over the country soon, 20 years ago there were NO electric car chargers and now Tesla has Superchargers everywhere. Whatever, I am not a scientist, but we'll have to wait for the hydrogen cars to develop, like EV's did 15 years ago.
hydrogen cars cannot compete with fossil fuel cars, because the hydrogen comes from the very same fossil resources out of the refineries. As long as the hydrogen is not coming from electrolysis a hydrogen car remains a fossil fuel car.
Fuel cell logic: We cannot all drive electric cars because we can't produce enough electricity. But needing three times the electricity to produce clean hydrogen by electrolysis to go the same distance as a pure EV is fine.
Producing gas for ICE vehicles consumes almost the same amount of electricity than driving an efficient EV. So the,, not enough electricity'' argument is not true, it's only a question of bringing the electricity to the chargers.
You are absolutely right that even the former argument is utter bollocks. Refining one litre of petrol alone takes about 1.6 kWh of electricity (figures may differ slightly). This alone easily powers an Hyundai Ioniq, compared to a fossil at 7 to 8 l/100km. Now take into account what else is needed to extract and transport oil, the environmental issues, spillages, and so on...
My brother , you might be right in your place , Hydrogen is on its basic stages , as the technology is getting better and better each day , it's gonna be better than electric cars , even electric cars where not cheap at its basic stages but now they are just because of upgrading of technology same as that the HFC cars will also get developed ☺️ You said that hydrogen cars "pee" all over the places , it is pure water
Yes Bjorn, you right. EV's is the best technology, because I can charge my car in my house with solar panels....Can I charge a hydrogen car in my house with solar panels???.....yes this is the big problem. Hydrogen is the perfect product for big companies, but no for humans.... EV is for humans. But, Tesla is a big company of EV, so this is the change. Thanks Tesla. Very late to Hydrogen and very very late to LPG... stupids technologies, the EV technology is here.
If you can't charge at home, get a fossil car. It's cheaper than hydrogen car, both to buy and to run. Then you have plenty of time left to do your shit.
ツ you can charge on the street, but if you haven't got point chargers, so PHEV. When you will go to the supermarket or IKEA...etc, you can charge free...
ツ It's not just the matter of popularity, it's production & logistics that're the problems. producing hydrogen is inherently expensive. lugging them around is inherently expensive. not to mention unlike liquid fossil fuels, which are just flammable (explosive only when a big quantity turned into gas), hydrogen is also inherently explosive. one puncture, one spark, is all it takes to get one tank blow up spectacularly.
I can buy a brand new cheap fossil car for the price of solar panels and storage. The future is ev, and I hope to join you, but to ignore the cost of dragging us fossil users to your way of thinking doesn't help.
I think hydrogen plug-in hybrid would be great if it could be done in reasonable price. 200 km realistic battery range to drive around the city and charging at home or fast charger + hydrogen fuel cell working as range extender for longer trips, so you could quickly fill the tank and continue driving. Another advantage of such car is that you wouldn't have to worry about hydrogen escaping from your tank - you fill it only for longer trips and use it all and for every day driving you just use battery.
In 2005, I compared the hydrogen car with the Salzburg Bull Washers. In the Middle Ages, the Salzburg fortress was besieged. In order to pretend to the besiegers still to have a lot of food, one led the same bull, but different colored, on the fortress wall every day. In this case, the big car companies want to deceive the customers, "Look, we are working on environmentally friendly cars, wait a while"
You make a great practical argument against H2 cars. The other big reason is safety: a gas flame is ~960 C, but an H2 flame is ~2,600 C, roasting you in seconds. Years ago on a student job in a physics lab. a professor told me of a hushed-up accident at another lab where an H2 tank that fell off a stand to the ground and it its valve cracked open. The tank turned into a rocket and blasted through walls and stopped in reinforced concrete, luckily missing people. Who wants to take that chance in an accident?
Hydrogen is at the same stage now, that EV was a couple years back. It's a very young technology. And the water exhaust in the winter problem is BS, ICE cars exhaust water as well.
EVs is older than ICE cars... hydrogen fuel cell cars is EVs but instead of having a big heavy lithium battery it'll use hydrogen.... Toyota said that if we produce more hydrogen then these cars would be very cheap to run (they make hydrogen from waste)
Slight problem with that graphic at 7:15 it deducts 10% AC transmission losses for EV’s but not hydrogen production. That electricity used to produce hydrogen doesn’t come from nowhere so there should be an additional 10% loss for the hydrogen vehicles. Also if you have local generation on your home such as solar you can remove that 10% loss for EV charging.
How do you make Hydrogen? You either make it by pumping 5x the amount of power into it compared to your EV, then use power to pump and pressurize it, then reverse the process for a 20% efficiency compared to the amount of power the Hydrogen provides. *OR* You make it in the refining process of petroleum products, which means that it's fundamentally linked to the price of gasoline, considering that even at the increased price of oil it's still a cheaper solution to electrolysis means that it isn't removing our dependency on oil. Which is exactly what the oil companies want. So... yeah, the problem with Hydrogen is that it requires far too much power, or doesn't resolve our usage of oil.
You say "5 times the power into it ?" ? Wrong ! "producing 1 kg of hydrogen (which has a specific energy of 143 MJ/kg or about 40 kWh/kg)" with a range of 190 klm per kilo versus " Model S 85 KWh battery." - a range of say 350 klms So, it is on par 190 klm per 40 watt for Hydrogen, 180 klm per 40 watts for Battery. ... and the Hydrogen only takes 3 minutes to fill up at the end of the trip. and the hydrogen stops a lot faster without the heavy battery. But most of all - Hydrogen tank capacity: 122.4 liters total (fore tank: 60 liters, aft tank: 62.4 liters) so the Range is FAR, FAR better than battery.
Making hydrogen at home would not be difficult but it would need much electricity (for the electrolyse and to compress the gaz) and it would make much much noise (compressor) so your neighbours will definitely HATE you . And to avoid to waste too much electricity it would be needed to use the heat of the compressor to heat a tank of water for home usage. And off course a tank is needed to store the hydrogen, and a device to send the hydrogen from the tank to the car, etc.
+Sukru Murat Cebeci That's actually a myth. Hydrogen as used in fuel cell vehicles isn't really any more explosive that Li-ion battery or even gasoline.
That's a poor argument. BEV's are by far the cheapest per mile over the life of a car, even counting the cost of the battery, but that wasn't always the case. It takes a bit of foresight and development, but in the end it's worth it. Cars weren't always cheaper per mile than horses, but that's also changed. At the end of the day, the decision should be based on facts. ie. is it possible to make a hydrogen car more efficient than a BEV? Is the advantage of quick fuelling enough, and is it an advantage it's likely to keep (no)? What is the cost of providing the fuel in a clean way, whether from renewables or geothermal or hydro? At the moment, there is a fundamental issue with hydrogen, and that is that the energy cost of producing it from clean sources is astronomical compared to BEV's, and BEV's have barely gotten started in terms of battery development and total system efficiency. The biggest issue with BEV's, is the battery. They are already better than ICE vehicles in literally every other way. Plus, the infrastructure already mostly exists, with the exception of the plug that comes out of the ground.
fernando bullshit. I have 2 Mirais and they are the less expensive to operate than a 10 year old corolla. After lease payments and rebates it's .17 cents a mile INCLUDING FUEL, MAINTENANCE AND DEPRECIATION.
KC9UDX That's great, but someone had to buy it new for you to be able to buy it used. New cars will always be required as old ones wear out, and we may as well make them as efficient as we can.
Here's a little history. Hydrogen cars actually started being sold 10 years ago here in the US - back in 2008. You don't hear much about them now since they've obviously lost the race. In the US, the first production hydrogen car, the Honda Clarity, was released in 2008, well before the first production EVs in 2011. Before Tesla entered the scene, EVs had nowhere near the range of a "fossil" car, and there was no such thing as a fast charger, so naturally hydrogen appeared to be the only real way forward. Then in 2012, along came Tesla and advanced EV technology to the point that hydrogen can no longer compete. I was at the Santa Monica Alt Car Expo in 2008 and I remember the hydrogen cars on display there. Back then, Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai were all on the hydrogen team and had invested a lot of money into developing hydrogen vehicles - but after seeing EVs leaving them in the dust, they eventually changed their mind.
Battery cars can be charge at home. And what's the propose of spending electricity to produce hydrogen and then transform again the hydrogen in electricity again?!
The point is to try to have different choices of car and it’s use of power, I mean this is right now. In 10-20 years every thing can be better adapted and cheaper. The only reason hydrogen is expensive is becasue there is not that many hydrogen cars, they would not be marking any money if it was cheap, but when there is a lot of hydrogen cars in the future it might be cheaper
Why are you completely ignoring the people who can't charge at home? I live in an apartment in Oslo and the public chargers are always full. I got rid of my Tesla because I was tired of either driving to a supercharger or charging for ages at a Fortum (or similar) charging station. Hydrogen should definitely be an alternative until proper quick charging (the new CCS stuff) or public charging are available everywhere. Not being able to charge at home really is cumbersome for people who doesn't want to drive to Drammen to charge at a supercharger or wait for an hour at a slow Chademo-charger. I don't think I'm the only one in that situation.
Bjorn, I love your shows and somewhat addicted, but you've got this totally wrong. It's not really about cost. If it were only about cost we'd probably all just stick with fossil for the added convenience too. but it's actually about the environment...going green. As long as hydrogen (and BEV) get their energy from renewable source then they are the only solutions to consider...fossil is dead, or dying, being killed off by governments wanting cleaner city air. Batteries are not the way to go for long distance, typically commercial, applications. For this reason refuelling stations will eventually become hydrogen to satisfy the trucks and vans who cannot afford to be out of action for charging. Batteries are also just too heavy to be the solution for long distance. Once the hydrogen refuelling is commonplace many, many people will choose the easier one-off refuelling similar to their fossil experience rather than constantly having to plug in either at home or at the shops. Super-fast chargers are an odd solution to the battery driving distance. It's potentially very unsafe to have 800V and 200A (160kW) in the hands of the general public. Unfortunately I don't think it will be long before one of these electrocutes someone. Funny I think we still consider mains electricity dangerous and that's only 240V 13A. Hydrogen will eventually overtake BEV as the energy of choice, it's just a pity a lot of money will have been wasted trying to force the battery-only solution as the one to adopt.
My info if you're interested in fuel economy; My old gas Car (Mercedes A class (the old one)) could go 800km with 40 liters of gas. Thats about 60-70€ of gasoline. So roughtly 8€/100km. My current Car (Hyundai Ionic EV) can go 200km (as listed, but I drive carefully so I can easily make 250 with it). Setting aside the fact that I have solar panels so since I got the car I didn't pay anything, I once drove 280km as a little road trip. I charged at a supercharger twice (battery wasn't full when starting). It cost me a total of 3,13€ for the 280km trip. Lets say 300km, cause I drove off to McDonalds as well. Thats 3,13€ for 300km. Thats 1€/100km. And as Bjórn said its roughtly 50€/500km on a hydrogen car. In this specific case at least. Bottom line: For me with my driving style if I charge at a public Supercharger with a card everyone can just get (NewMotion). Hydrogen car costs 10€/100km My gas car costs 8€/100km My EV costs 1€/100km Not even mentioning the service cost. Last big inspection for my gas car was 376€. Last big inspection for my EV was 74€. I love my EV. And well, regarding the discussion from the video; A Hydrogen car is essentially a EV, but with a Hydrogen Cell ontop. Terrible Energy conversion. Bleh. And ontop of that you need to periodically replace ALL Hydrogen parts in these cars, because the Pipes, Tank, Cell, everything breaks down from the Hydrogen. (Something like that) Roughly every 240K Km all of the technical blab needs to be replaced. Oof. And guys, just because it says an EV battery has an 8 year warranty, doesnt mean its instantly dead after 8 years. Did your toaster immediately break after its 6 Month warranty expired? I think not. The manufacturers are so extremely confident with their batteries that they say if anything happens to it in 8 years(!) you get a new one. (well, or typically 200K miles) Friendly reminder: I have 86 solar panels. My Ioniq can recharge in 4 hours at 7,4Kw (28kw/h batterie) I can go to work for 1,5 weeks with a full batterie. So If i charge once on a sunday thats enough. I didn't pay a single cent for my way to work since I got the car. If you should reply, please, please be constructive.
Naysayers like those were struck down in less than 10 years with irrefutable proof, addressing EVERY SINGLE problem they put forth with EV, all but recharging time. back then it was only a will to move that whole thing forward. the tech was there, the resources were there. but hydrogen, the tech ain't exactly here, the resources, well... it ain't all that different from fossil fuels... & then, you can't do shit about the nature of hydrogen--VERY volatile explosive. gasoline & diesel cars don't blow up easily even when they leak fuel. they catch fire. & that itself was dangerous enough. hydrogen needs ONLY one spark to BLOW UP. a fuel leak will turn utterly disastrous very quickly.
Not at all. I have checked lots of facts and found it to be useless. The problem with EVs 10 years ago was that there was just fossil car as the only alternative. But today you can choose between fossil or EV instead of hydrogen. If 10 years ago, EVs had poor range, no refueling stations AND hydrogen had great range, lots of models to choose between and massive refueling stations everywhere as well as the option to refuel at home, THEN it would be the same case.
The realitiy is this: Electric car naysayers talking bullshit, not using facts, instead contradicting themselved in regard to real facts all the time. Hydrogen car naysayers presenting facts and numbers that clearly shows how bad this idea is. Then: some stupid moron appears and compares both naysayers and declares they are the same. Me: facepalm.
The whole point is that once the oil starts to run out and the world faces economic and industrial collapse, things like hydrogen will suddenly become VERY viable options. Replace every gas refinery with a solar-powered electrolysis plant and the supply is easily achieved.
About 10 years ago the US Government announced they were no longer funding research of hydrogen fueled vehicles specifically because there was no energy and cost efficient way to produce hydrogen. They would in a limited way fund hydrogen research. There are many advantages that could exist IF there could be a fundamental shift in the ratio of electricity required to produce a unit of hydrogen. In an ideal sense hydrogen can be stored at far lower cost than batteries. Another factor is that there is a massive loss in transmitting electricity over long distances, primarily from creation of waste heat. IF it was practical, hydrogen can be produced at the source of power, a big advantage for remote wind farms where the cost of transmission lines is greater than the wind turbines or solar farms or hydro power in remote areas. So it is not that hydrogen cars and trucks are bad, but rather could be wonderful . What continues to be the problem is the current cost which reflects the very issue that caused the US to pull the plug. We need to solve the issue of hydrogen production. If that ever gets solved then everything Bjorn said will be true of BEV. Unless and until hydrogen makes no sense.
Hydrogen fuel cells The argument that it is expensive is very short sited. I have solar panels on my roof and make my own hydrogen and fill my hydride tank converting water to hydrogen . Also where I work they have a bloom box it converts NG. My company has recouped the the capital investment in the first year of savings on electricity from the grid. We also sequester the Co2 and have a agreement with industries to purchase the gas for less than they were paying elsewhere. Hydroelectric, wind, solar and cracking NG are all viable sustainable and non polluting. As of now Hydrogen storage outlasts battery storage both in capacity and in the longevity of the appliance. The main argument against hydrogen was platinum. The need for rare and expensive platinum coated electrodes as a catalyst for oxidation reaction has been replaced in non mobile applications with ceramic electrodes. Cheap and infinite source. The replacement for mobile electrodes while still in development will be graphene or carbon nano tubes which now also have a large scale cost effective manufacturing process. The thing that will kill fuel cells is the solid state electrolyte in batteries.(not yet available ) This advancement will allow fast charging,long range and stable battery life making the fuel cell a difficult competitive alternative. The Japanese have invested big time in both mobile and grid fuel cells. This may keep the competition going enough for its viability You’re questions are all answered in this commentary. “The fuel cell does not have enough acceleration” wrong that depends on the size of the cell relative to the payload. A battery is not necessary it is just practical at this point. ‘Expensive” I make mine from solar!. NG (natural gas) is cheap and abundant here in the US and the conversion is efficient and clean (cracking NG in a reformer fuel cell sequesters the Co2 into solid waste (graphite a byproduct that can be sold). Don’t make your conclusion based on current pricing. “Hard to transport”? I guess you are referring to the pressure for liquification? NG is moved as a gas in pipe lines at ambient temperatures in the US a majority of homes and businesses in The US have pipelines for NG. A home ceramic fuel cell can convert NG to LH (liquid hydrogen ) for domestic use as well as mobile. At 65-95% efficiencies when heat waste provides hot water and heating or cooling for the home and electricity at lower rates than the utility. The LH can be stored to fill your car or you can fill it straight from the Reformer fuel cell.( this takes a while but is a good option when you can afford the time. Equivalent to charging batteries.)
your comment was very informative.... but just a few things, i think it was Toyota a few mts ago has got a solid state battery tech (they're still saying that hydrogen is the way forward) maybe they plan to use this new battery tech on hydrogen car to add a small battery of a range of like 10mi (this will give power on demand while the hydrogen fuel cell takes it sweet time to ramp up, also used for regen from brakes).... also idk if you know but there is "solar panels" that use sometype of algae and it produces hydrogen, its much more efficient than a solar panel at adsorbing the sun and you can stack them on eachother (its still newish and they're installed on a few building and so far its working out great) so i can see ppl using this to make hydrogen at home in the near future....
Hydrogen just diffuses through pretty much everything, so it's very difficult to contain. Also making hydrogen by electrolysis is rather inefficient. Maybe making hydrogen from waste biomass is a alternative. But I don't think it is a good technology for mass use. There may be a bunch of niche uses though where improvements of the technology can pay off. For example I could imagine farmers to power their vehicles with hydrogen they make. Or charge a EV with the electricity they make with their hydrogen.
The diagramm at 7:17 ... is really interesting! If you read this correct and you know, that a gasoline or diesel car have had also an efficiency of maximum 16% ... than the solution and changing to full electrical car is so clear and necessary! Thanks!
The home fuel cell is 95% efficient as the waste heat is cooled by water so you automatically have hot domestic water and you can heat your home or use heat to cool your home. The NG is cracked in a reformer before entering the fuel cell. And is sequestered on the spot. The price of NG is far less than the cost of the electricity. The availability rates of NG are not subject to peek rate charges! ICEs have had waste heat the entire history of the automobile. It’s a shame if you consider the temperature of the exhaust manifold and the catalytic converter(700 -1200 degrees) All the H H O enthusiast who are trying to get better gas mileage by using the alternator to split water and subsidies fuel should consider using the catalytic converter incorporated in the loop.
Roger Starkey the fuel cell is water cooled just like the ICE. The ICE actually puts out hotter exhaust do to the catalytic reaction of unspent gas fumes! All of the hydrogen is is recombined which oxidation resulting in water vapor and no un combusted fumes as a result and if there were they would not be pollutants.
Dana, fuel cells in the home can recover the waste heat energy to heat your home. This heat is lost to the system if hydrogen is burnt in a fuel cell in a car, and thus is generally a bad idea in vehicles. Fuel cell cars are not lighter than evs, and the fill/charge time is similar. Overall, fuel cells in cars are adistant 2nd to batteries.
For mass adoption of EVs you will need to install hundreds of thousands of charging points for a city, but you only need a few H2 refuelling station then you can serve the whole city. Also, for cities like Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong, most people live in flats and it is impossible to install charging points at every parking bays. H2 is clearly the answer for these places if we are to replace all ICE cars by 2040.
Good points. Glad you mentioned the big energy waste of hydrogen generation and distribution. IMO, this is the biggest reason to use BEV instead of hydrogen. Hydrogen needs a few more decades of research before it would make sense to use. But in 2 or 3 decades we'll probably have next generation batteries which are cheap, light, can be recharged instantly, and hold way more energy.
What range does the Tesla have during the winter? Hydrogen cars have the range, but battery cars can't really increase their range much more because if you add 20 miles worth of heavy battery, you have to haul it around for 300 miles before you can utilize that last bit of capacity.
Hydrogen cars uses Li-ion batteries aswell (smaller tho). The platinium catalyst used in fuel cells will last only about 150000km. The efficiency for converting by electrolysis electricity to H2 and then H2 to electricity in the embedded fuel cell has a global efficiency of 30%. The charge/discharge efficiency of a Li-ion battery is about 94% (including the charger losses). So it's more efficient to put electrons directly in a battery than converting it into hydrogen.
Here in Bremen we have one hydrogen refuelling station, too. But they are even worse: they manufacture hydrogen by splitting it from oil. For some applications, i can see the point for it. But for cars and most Lories an ev makes so much more sense.
Battery EV came well over 100 years ago and even before the combustion engine cars, but could not compete with engine cars. Likewise, with the world's biggest car companies like Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, Audi gearing up to produce Fuel Cell cars, then perhaps Battery EV might be pushed back yet again.
batteries by nature wouldn't be as efficient... here is the thing all the companies you just mention is giants in the automotive industry (and i know for a fact that Toyota currently have better battery tech than Tesla) but yet all of them is saying that hydrogen is the future....
In germany a couple of VW Touran cars that ran on natural gas (methane) exploded at gas stations - no flames involved (luckily). The tank pressure alone which is around 200 bars (~3000psi destroyed the car. Those cars (or what remained of them) didnt look very good. Imagine standing right next to it. Hydrogen is stored with 600 bars (10.000psi). Also Hydrogen is very volatile, reacts with anything, hard to store, expensive and ineffective to create, we can't see it, can't smell it and making it available to every dumb idiot at every gas station everywhere seems dangerous and just isn't a good idea. But I like Hydrogen. Most common element in the universe. Use it for busses, military vehicles, planes and helicopters, rockets and space vehicles - stuff like that. Things not everybody has access to.
You remind me of ppl who use petrol and diesel cars, thats the arguments they used when electric cars came about. Why don't you just accept we can use diffrent energy technology everything takes time and money. WE DON'T NEED NEGATIVITY. We don't need to follow one type of fuelling system, these conversations/Videos always end with my way is the best way. Good vid ++++
Basically, think of Hydrogen vs. EV this way: - In an EV, you store the energy from the power plant, electrically delivered by the ubiquitous electricity infrastructure. - In a H2V, you store the energy you put into making the hydrogen, physically delivered by the H2 infrastructure that needs to be built. Even if you spend the Trillions necessary to make H2 infrastructure ubiquitous, it is always going to be more efficient, easier, quicker, and cheaper to move electrons, than electrons, protons, neutrons, and whatever container is containing them. EV technology will become more efficient with greater energy storage / kg. Hydrogen cant really get more efficient than it currently is.
I am from India. EV infra IS GETTING DEVELOPED HERE TOO. But the major concerns for a person like me is the driving range .... As I drive around 800-1000 km in a single day while on a trip, and in such case I will need to charge the EV twice. If I need to wait for say 1-2 hrs to full charge my EV, it will add up 3-4 hrs in my journey which isnt viable for such long distances. Same could be the issue with the US people who support Hydrogen.
yes but then again, are you ready to pay more than you already pay for petrol/diesel (already exorbitant in india) only to have a car which cannot refuel ANYWHERE? while yes the EV adds 3-4 hours to the trip time, for H2 this trip time is infinite because no H2 station. If you thought EV DCFC stalls were costly at 15L a piece for 30kW, wait till you hear about the price of single dispenser H2 stations (north of $1M thats 8 crore INR) Further, since there are so few H2 stax in Cali, the lines are long, since 1M only gets you one dispenser while it can get you 10 tesla superchargers. Wait is long for consequent fillings because the gas laws show that when the tank at station fills a car, its pressure drops, it needs to repressurise the H2 bunk at the station and chill it again (needs massive amounts of electricity and 10-30min depending on how much H2 was sold to the previous vehicle Not to mention, that H2 cars are very poor on interior space, the Mirai gets 250L boot which is 1/3rd that of model S which gets same 500km at same retail price and much cheaper running cost. Even my nexon ev has 350L boot SO faster refilling on highway trips is moot if you cant even sit in comfort on the rear bench and the boot takes less luggage than the avg hatchback in India RN, we have Ioniq 5 and EV6 which offer same range (500km) as mirai for cheaper than mirai costs (both ioniq 5 and ev6 are same price as USA and in USA, the two are quite a bit cheaper than mirai)
Ugg. I read about that it can be a 1 hour wait for the pump to work. And also the price is to high. I think I heard new tanks with metalfoam inside could take more kg per volume. And they dont have power regeneration I guess. A small batterypack so it can regen with higher efficiency would be nice. Combining hydrogen and a big batterypack would only work on trucks. Well. Electricity is the future. We need those fusion reactors!
Sure, you can refuel quickly, but it's there's inefficiencies in making H2 from electricity, then making electricity from H2 in the car. Until you can produce H2 at home from your own PV, cheaply, as far as I'm concerned it doesn't solve all our problems. Whereas you can buy, right now, solar plus battery plus EV car, and it all works.
If they wanted to lure people in they should at least lower the cost of hydrogen so that it's cheaper than gas until enough people have bought fuel cell cars. The fact that they don't do that tells me no one is taking this serious.
A hydrogen car may not be for you but that doesn't mean they are bullshit. Not everyone has off street parking; my car is parked in the street so a home charger is not an option for me. Being able to fill a hydrogen car as easily as my ICE would be a great advantage.
Easy and cheap, especially considering that for buying solar panels you need a roof to put them on... and walls sustaining this roofs... oops, that's what's called a house (minimum $500.000 - sorry I live in Switzerland, houses are expensive). I forgot the car ($90.000 if it's Tesla Model S, 85kWh battery pack, $180.000 with 100kWh battery pack, at least $50.000 for any other model,...). Between $600.000 and $700.000... easy and cheap I said...
Sounds great but it's not free. You need to buy the solar set up and then buy the car which is not cheap. Most people can't afford to do it which is why we have to buy second/third hand petrol cars. 30k+ for an EV is for the rich only. And exactly how many years would it take to offset that cost before it really becomes free?.
You were so right. For an English article see Insideevs: "Hydrogen Fueling Station Explodes: Toyota & Hyundai Halt Fuel Cell Car Sales:" It starts with: "Blast was so big it set off airbags in nearby cars. A hydrogen refueling station exploded and stood in flames yesterday in Sandvika, Norway, [...], Because of that, Uno-X closed its two other stations with hydrogen in Norway, while carmakers - Toyota and Hyundai - temporarily stopped sales of FCVs." insideevs.com/news/354223/hydrogen-fueling-station-explodes/
![Six Hundred Strike [EPIC: The Musical] Full Animatic](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zov6NXIAuow/mqdefault.jpg)
This station just blew up today. It's all over the news.
www.nrk.no/norge/eksplosjon-ved-hydrogenstasjon-1.14582914
the only good argument you bring up in this video against hydrogen is possible ice from the water. (though I often see water from gasoline cars too)
I'd still drive hydrogen if I didn't live in Norway. salt would probably also be a bitch
#noFuture
@@Half_Finis Ignorance drives stupid decisions.
You really weren’t kidding...that’s wild! Totally thought this was a troll message at first😱
Ha. TAKE THAT F’CKING HYDROGEN
In Switzerland we had 5 Busses running on H2 and I was able to visit the fueling station. They did produce the H2 from Water and electricity on site but also had extra trailers from industry production as the system could be too slow to get enought H2 for the daily needs of the 5 busses. I also had a chance to ride with such Bus.. that was a really good feeling when you compare to diesel busses and I could not understand why they gave up after 5 years! But nobody thought it would be possible to create Electric Bus that can keep up with power an range withe the fuelcell Busses.. but the end of H2 usage was due to high-cost of operating H2 busses .
It was worth trying, to show that it does work as a backup for the time when diesel will not be allowed any longer! The storage of H2 isnt as easy as many thought.. so at the end, Batteries win.
For cars, that's correct. For trucks, planes, ships , that's another story. You can basically convert those to H2 and run the same day-to-day operations. Batteries can't scale up like that.
There`re commercial ferys and ships using batteries, but none using H2.
Agreed. Long haul trucking and freight railroad routes are fixed. It's easier to build a few, larger, H2 generation/refueling stations along these routes over many.
There may be a reasonable argument in using this concept for future PHEVs, a battery to cover the majority of our daily driving, and a H2 fuel cell as a x-country range extender. Less H2 infrastructure required in urban areas focusing more on interstates and highways.
Not yet.
In every way possible electric vehicles are better than fossil burners, except for energy storage. The real trick is going to be coming up with a battery tech that can come close to, or exceed, current diesel designs. You don't need to store as much energy as diesel, as the electric drivetrains are more efficient, but if say you use 1/4 the energy of diesel to move the vehicle, then you need a battery that has 1/4 the energy density of diesel, for example (simplified for brevity).
Hydrogen might be a good stepping stone for large transport, but the energy cost of creating that hydrogen is a real issue, as is the usual source (not clean).
I actually think hydrogen might make for a good plane fuel source, as it is very light, and generally has few but well serviced points of demand (airports), and so would make total sense for that application.
And, if like the Orkney Islands are trying to do, we use unused capacity from renewables to generate it, then it would be super clean, and pretty cheap.
they can, you just carry more. hydrogen doesnt work on large scale, it could have a chance in transportation but even then nope
Richard Roberson The Orkney Islands are looking to use excess wind power to generate hydrogen for their ferry to mainland UK. As it's excess anyway could be cost effective, but otherwise likely not.
That hydrogen station just exploded!!!!!
Not joking!!!
Ha ha ha
Well, that can happen to any charge/gas station :)
@@MrVolodus Chargers don't explode. They may catch fire though but it will never be this severe or dangerous.
@@MrVolodus Not like this. Gasoline burns, hydrogen just straight up explodes
@@feonor26 Depends ...
But yeah, in general, hydrogen is much more likely to explode :)
I guess the main reason not to buy hydrogen is that it isn't green at all because you need about 5x more energy for the same range in comparison to electric cars
If the hydrogen is made by electricity that consists out of 50% coal it's more ecological to drive diesel compared to hydrogen
Very little hydrogen is made by electrolysis. Most of it is produced by stripping carbon off of natural gas. The long term idea is that you'd then sequester that carbon underground but that's something I don't think we'll see at scale for 10-20 years. In the mean time renewables are dirt cheap per kWh and EVs can actually work well with their intermittent supply.
Hydrogen in this refuling station is made by electrolysis. With abt 99% Hydro on the electric grid in Norway this argument is not valid. Hydrogen can be a solution to large energy storage, but it all depends on efficiency.
But you only need 1.5KWh to run the hydrogen car unlike a Tesla with 100kWh. Hydrogen works very well in low temperatures. But green Hydrogen is far away.
The problem with hydrogen is it cannot ever be efficient compared to just putting the electricity in a battery. It's not a solution to large energy storage either; compressed gas, pumped hydro, batteries are solutions. They're all efficient processes. Hydrogen cannot ever be.
I believe the best use for hydrogen is for big trucks, and then ships. Very useful for them. And maybe even planes.
Thing on the ship's is, you can have a tiny amount of power from solar panels perhaps recharging the batteries and filling up the hydrogen.
Planes is unlikely as there is no existing electric jet engine. So unless you think it's okay for planes to go a quarter the range at a quarter the speed, I don't think it's a solid choice.
Only if they can liquify hydrogen for planes then it is possible
@@Skylancer727 Electric planes exist. It will happen. It will just take longer. Flammable liquid is not advisable... that goes for petrol and hydrogen.
@lachlanB323 yeah electric "planes" exist, but electric "jets" do not. There aren't any existing electric jet engines and to go back from the jet engine means planes that go half to a quarter the speed with only half the range for the same energy. So even if we had batteries as energy dense as jet fuel it would still have half the range.
And not sure what you mean "flammable liquids not advisable". It's what we use right now and planes make up less than 1% of pollution. And what's wrong with hydrogen? Hydrogen burns completely clean with nothing but water left behind. And hydrogen fuel cells don't even require filtering NoX like combustion does. There's nothing wrong with hydrogen, it's just too expensive for consumer use.
I love how Optimus looks, There is a Model X near me that looks stunning, blue paint, black wheels, and also P100D! It looks almost like Optimus but has black wheels
I know, right? I don't get why and how some people find Teslas ugly.
Evolt they see it so often, they are tired of it
Here in the Czech Republic, there are only around 1500 electric cars out of 5 - 6 million ICE cars.
here in norway tesla is one of the most common cars
About 10-20 years ago, we would have said the same about battery powered cars.. the cells will only last a very limited cycles, and they were heavy. Chargers and charging were inefficient and were really slow. And look where we are now.
Personally I'd like to see as much development in different solutions as possible. For now it's useless to normal consumers, but that does not mean that it will always be like that.
Hydrogen hasn't had it's Elon Musk yet that just sat down and said "ok, we are gonna develop and push this" speeding up the development of that tech. (although smartphones and wearables have clearly had a big impact in battery improvements too)
Personally I'd prefer it to batteries, specially if they'd make it a semi-closed loop where you can just plug in and turn the water that was generated from driving back into hydrogen again.
Electrolysis isn't really efficient enough to do that yet, but who knows what happens in the future, and that can change the entire playing field again.
Research is good, gaining experience with this type of tech is good.. marketing this to the average consumer at this time is not..
I'd love to see where it goes, but I think in the end there's a reasonable chance it will beat battery-electric... not in the next 5 years or so.. but at some point.. it will.
Exactly, that's last part is why I do think hydrogen shouldn't be counted out yet..
It's true that 10-20 years ago EVs had no fast chargers, had poor range and cost too much. But one fundamental feature never changed, which was that electricity is everywhere. If both EVs and hydrogen cars started competing 10-20 years ago, hydrogen might have won by 2018.
The problem is that hydrogen cars never started the race back then. They (might) be starting now which is way too late. EVs already have a great lead. That's why hydrogen is bullshit.
One thing you didn't address--hydrogen is a very volatile explosive. EV batteries practically eliminates that part of safety concern, by just being inherently very hard to blow up. hydrogen-powered ones, will ALWAYS have a greater risk than even gasoline & diesel cars, simply because hydrogen can blow up so so easily. hydrogen tanks are durable, sure. but in the event where there is a fuel leak somehow, conventional cars don't even catch fire unless exposed to extreme heat, or well, fire; EV cars, it'd be an upsetting & expensive annoyance, hardly more; hydrogen, ONE spark, boom.
Did anyone mention Hindenburg? :P
@Falcon Windblade: actually, hydrogen isn't much of an explosive until you mix it with oxygen. if stored properly and with no oxygen mixed in, it's not dangerous at all. (unless you decide to inhale it, which is a different topic ;) )
There have been accidents with hydrogen prototypes, and basically people had expected to see what you mentioned. but it didn't. If it's a small leak, the hydrogen is so much lighter than the air around it, that it will go almost straight up. Compare that to gas pooling under the car that you might be trapped in. *yikes*
Secondly there have been cases where the hydrogen got released because the container it was in exploded. and no fire was started. That is because the gas expands so fast, that it pushes the oxygen away from the site of the accident before rising in the air, and no oxygen means there's no real way for a fire to start.. of course it can explode and burn if all the criteria are met, but so can fossils and EV's. Check google images for Hydrogen car fire to see a comparison of a gasoline leak and hydrogen leak burning (test done around 2000 iirc)
And Bjorn, the Hindenburg actually started with the "skin" burning. the material the zeppelin was coated in would burn at the smallest spark. then when that burned through the pockets of hydrogen and air was mixing in.. yes.. that was not a good thing to have happen. Also there are signs that metal beams might have broken inside the airship releasing the hydrogen from the bags it was in and mixing with outside air Also the Hindenburg was designed to be operated with Helium which the Americans refused to provide. The fact that they had to run it with hydrogen while not being designed for it didn't really help either.
If you look at the disaster footage by the way, it kind of shows the advantage of hydrogen.. you can see the gas and flames going upward.. if the burning carcass hadn't fallen down on people, or if the carriage had been designed to take the weight of the hot metal and burning cloth falling on top of it, the people inside would probably have gotten away a lot better. also the fuel tanks containing fuel for the engines leaking on the ground didn't help the survival chances much either.
No need to do negative campaign, let's the market decide.
It is good to have various type of energy
It´s not a different "type" of energy. It still is electricity.
The market kinda already has. Hydrogen has been talked about for at least two decades and from time to time looked really promising, while electric always felt shaky, more of a necessity downgrade because pollution. But then all of a sudden a decade ago, electric gained a stable foot in the door with sports- and luxury cars firmly established. A niche, but a very important one, as those categories felt like the last ones it could succeed in. It proved to people it really works and even works good if done right. It paved the way to more mainstream cars, and now we're on the brink of having good and affordable electric cars for the masses.
Hydrogen is bullshit
Hydrogen is bullshit
Hydrogen cars aren't bad, the infrastructure just isn't ready yet. There will be electric vehicles powered by lithium for about a decade or so more while they build up the infrastructure for them. The same way old hydrogen tanks in cars used to explode, they made them safer and new ones cannot explode. The production facilities like nuclear facilities are slowly becoming more and more durable and unlikely to have accidents.
high maintenance costs (just look in the manual of the mirai) It has so much expensive filter changes every few tousand km... it makes no sense
@@LittleSpot give it time to cook
Its even sillier when you compare the consumption to produce the hydrogen. You need about 55kwh to produce 1kg of it. Thats 55kwh/80km or 69kwh/100km or 690wh/km
And the peeing: It dumps about 8l of water / 100km. So when 100k hydrogen cars / day pass a highway, that means they drop 8000l of water - on a track of 1 km. I would definitely watch a live cam to this :)
Feh Lix you know 8000 l is not that much on 1km track
The reason that you cannot refuel hydrogen at home is the main reason why energy providers and the government want that. ;-) It´s all about the control of supply and the costs of energy. (Follow the money)
Nope this is because it's expensive as fuck to produce and store enough amount of hydrogen. And your logic is dumb as fuck, it consumes more energy to create hydrogen than storing it into lithium-ion cells. So it would be better for people who want to "control of supply and the costs of energy" to force people creating hydrogen (I will not talk about the storage part) with electricity than giving authorisation to citizen to use lithium-ion cells....
yes, I think so too.
BUT H2 makes sense where weight matters, so Semis or Planes.
Also a funny side-Note, the Company I work at built a prototype of a Home-Hydrogen-Refueling Station, it was scrapped later but it may be continued by a different company now.
You don't refuel with hydrogen at home because it is stupidly dangerous. Compressing the gas needs serious amounts of cooling. The equipment would have to be inspected regularly. Then there's the issue of your garage exploding because the odourless gas you've generated was ignited by static from your clothes in the cold dry atmosphere.
I think some of you guys did not see the point in my comment. ;-) Of course, you are not able to refuel hydrogen at home. This is why suppliers and providers are happy about that, so they can take any price they want at the hydrogen stations. Otherwise if you have a PV at home you can generate your own solar energy and you are mostly independent. (less taxes etc.)
That's why oil and gas company try to portrait hydrogen as a Future fuel. It's very hassle a lot more than just install a charger at your garage (It's also a lot more louder cause you always got a pump running try to compress H2).
Being able to charge at home is such a big deal for me makes battery’s win every time
What about hydrogen plug-in-hybrids?
25 kWh battery plus hydrogen tank for longer trips? That way you can refuel at home for daily use and fast "charge" on longer trips. Yes, hydrogen is more expensive (cost- and energy-wise) atm, but once we have more renewables and with that higher fluctuations in energy supply, hydrogen (or methane since there are also methane fuel cells) is a good way to store large amounts of energy. It would be mostly the excess energy anyway.
In my opinion that is a valid option and a good alternative to huge battery packs getting dragged around all day.
Most of the hydrogen produced today is by steam reformation of petroleum.
Only a small percentage is from water as electrolysis is more expensive.
What is one of Norway's biggest industries?
Oil!
It wasn't Hindenberg, couldn't stop laughing at that! Great joke
Same here :D Prolly too long ago for lots of viewers :)
Yes uncle Bjørn is a funny guy 😂
I died when I heard that joke
“pee all over the place” - love it :-)
You are right about efficiency, but what about long term thinking? How bad will be for the environment after millions of batteries will get out of service? How will these be recycled? The good part of hydrogen here is that it is clean solution long term.. just my opinion..
Fuel cells degrade and wear out over time. Fuel cell vehicles also contain batteries that degrade even faster because they cycle so much. Hydrogen is not a solution.
The electricity used to charge the tesla batter probably comes from a coal fired plant.
In Norway??? Certainly not!
The numbers on the graph near the end are optimistic for hydrogen in the electrolysis and in the conversion back into electricity in the fuel cell. The latter is about the same as an ICE engine with about 1/3 of the fuel value reaching the electric drivetrain. About 2/3 of the energy in the tank ends up as waste heat. Granted, some of that can be used to heat the car in cold weather.
Another thing is the non-conductive coolant for the fuel cell itself. It is a very expensive consumable that has to be replenished at about $70-$100/10k miles (16,000 km) here in California. That is the price for 1 liter of coolant, pre-mixed with deionized water. Since it goes bad like brake fluid once opened, and the pre-mix is sold in that quantity, you don't get to pay for what you use if your car needs less when you take it in for this mandatory service. If your car needs more than a liter, you pay for 2 liters.
Another problem is that some hfc cars require a much higher pressure to refuel than the current fueling stations can provide. So you can only fill your tank with 50% of what the car is capable of holding... 😑
That's true, but that's really not an issue with hydrogen, it's more a teething pain you experience with new technologies. Like chargers always being out of order when you get to them for non-Tesla cars that don't have the supercharger network.
I'm pretty sure electrolysis 50-60% efficient, not 75%. They get 75% efficiency when they derive hydrogen from crude oil, something the world definitely doesn't need.
nah, wrong - "Considering the industrial production of hydrogen, and using current best processes for water electrolysis (PEM or alkaline electrolysis) which have an effective electrical efficiency of 70-80%, producing 1 kg of hydrogen (which has a specific energy of 143 MJ/kg or about 40 kWh/kg) requires 50-55 kWh of electricity"
And if you actually listen, they create the Hydrogen from Hydro Electricity, not Oil
I am surprised and disappointed by how you completely missed the actual main point of a hydrogen cars over EV: batteries.
I mean of course hydrogen is not competitive enough right now with EVs in the open market, mainly because it is not developed enough compared to EVs as you nicely pointed out.
But the reason that we are working on hydrogen technology and fuel cells is not to compete directly with EVs, but rather to find a better and more ecological alternative to the EVs current lithium based batteries. Lithium batteries in fact have a big ecological impact and require a lot of materials to produce, while hydrogen can be potentially way cleaner with virtually no ecological impact if is produced with renevable energy sources. Reality is that EVs are the minority and for now we have enough lithium for them, but in the future that may not be the case (ignoring the envyromental impact the extraction of the metal causes). Hydrogen would solve that problem.
Also the charging bit, come on who would want to plug in and wait for their car to charge when they could refuel in a couple of minutes fully with hydrogen? As of now it's not a big enough advandage to justify a hydrogen car and their other problems (again, it's still a technology that is researched and developed a lot), but if it was more on par, this wouldn't even be a question.
So while you are indeed making a good point considering the exact situation as of now, you are failing completely in even considering the bigger picture.
Batteries will last the lifetime of the car. And even after the car is done, the cells can either be re-used or recycled. Tesla has shown that batteries will last at least 500k km:
electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/
I bet you don't own an EV yourself. That's why you don't understand the charging part. You own a fossil car, right? Most people use the car for local runs. And then there's no need to fast charge the car. And for long trips, you fast charge while you take a break anyways. This has been explained over and over again.
About the charging: are you like Bjorn, who drives 1000 km every other day? (Exaggerated, but I guess not that much)
I don't want to wait at all, so I just plug in when I'm not using the car anyway, e.g. at home when I'm sleeping, or when I'm shopping, ...
So, why should I wait for a few minutes every week or two? On a longer trip, with a gasoline car or a HFC car, you'll probably stand there, waiting for the tank to fill, then go to the bathroom, have a bite, have a coffee, etc. With a BEV, you get there, plug in, go to the bathroom, have a bite, have a coffee, go back to the car, unplug and you're on your way.
And you probably pay only a fraction of the price per km driven as well. I somehow have doubts the price for hydrogen will come down that much. I'm also pretty sure the price for electricity will not rise that much, since even in Germany with not that many sunny hours, the production price for solar power has started to rival conventional generation (even including battery storage for times when the sun doesn't shine!)
What was the advantage of the HFC car again?
The man tried to say that hydrogen cars are more ecological than EV cars because batteries are not so eco to produce, they need cobalt which is extracted somewhere in Africa and there is not enaugh cobalt on Earth to built batteries for every car! I know you are a Tesla fan, but you have to research a bit more to see the bigger picture!
Tesla fan or not, but people have look at the alternative, hydrogen can be extracted, in most energy efficient way, from hydrocarbons that leads to green house gases along with some water.
But even more dangerous outcome of burning hydrogen in fuel cells is it takes away oxygen in the process of providing energy and locking away most precious of elements for life's existence oxygen into water.
If we go ahead with hydrogen economy, we will set up humanity for a catastrophe. The Oxygen Depletion Problem, which would make Earth inhabitable.
krishna kishor bhat , the solution is not hydrogen fuel cells that produces electricity, but use the hydrogen as fuel directly, in an combustion engine, it burns quite well. regarding oxygen, all cars today consumes oxygen, the point is we need to produce more oxygen by protecting forests!
Once your realise that Hydrogen cars are basically Battery Electric Vehicles with an entire redundant fuel cell system built on top to charge the batteries, they make no sense. Why would you used hydrogen, which is expensive and incredibly hard to transport and store to charge up the batteries of your EV when you could charge it up from any outlet or the thousands of fast chargers all over the place? A hydrogen ev needs a substantial battery, because the fuel cell doesn't produce enough power for acceleration, the electric motors need to drain that energy from the battery mostly.
You’re questions are all answered in this commentary. “The fuel cell does not have enough acceleration” wrong that depends on the size of the cell relative to the payload.
A battery is not necessary it is just practical at this point. ‘Expensive” I make mine from solar!. NG (natural gas) is cheap and abundant here in the US and the conversion is efficient and clean (cracking NG in a reformer fuel cell sequesters the Co2 into solid waste (graphite a byproduct that can be sold). Don’t make your conclusion based on current pricing. “Hard to transport”? I guess you are referring to the pressure for liquification? NG is moved as a gas in pipe lines at ambient temperatures in the US a majority of homes and businesses in The US have pipelines for NG. A home ceramic fuel cell can convert NG to LH for domestic use as well as mobile. At 65-95% efficiencies when heat waste provides hot water and heating or cooling for the home and electricity at lower rates than the utility.
I absolutely LOVE refueling my 2 EVs at home. With hydrogen cars (just like with fossil fuel cars) we would always be paying prices that are at the whim of big oil type companies.
Jose Sure, but they control far less than oil companies do. not to mention there's also the option for setting up solar panels, which are getting better & better these days, which in turn help cut recharging costs. you can't do that with the oil companies.
José Correia ... To some degree, the electric utility may control prices, but it's not the same. I can generate some of my own electricity using solar. Plus, our electric rates are regulated by a Public Utility Commission. The electric utility can't just jack up the price by 20% just because a holiday is approaching. Our local gasoline prices bounce around 10, 15, and 20% for no good reason. By purchasing an electric car, I've eliminated all those shenanigans.
José Correia in what country? They're not regulated in the US except by the forces of the local market, and in many cases, local whim. I recall several years ago in Phoenix when a quirk of the supply chain resulted in gasoline prices in Phoenix jumping to over $5/gallon while the national average had never even reached $2/gallon, catching the gas stations off guard and having to scramble to change their signs to be able to display prices of $2+per gallon. If prices were regulated, that never could have happened. I think you're confusing taxed with regulated. Oil drilling, refining, delivery, storage, and sale are highly regulated, but prices are not beyond the existence of things like OPEC.
The biggest problem with EV's is the resale value. In 5 years selling your model 3 will be like trying to sell your old flip phone to a smartphone customer. They will loose extreme amounts of value after driven off the lot and over the first few years with newer/longer range models come out.
But you can charge for free from your own solar panels on the roof. If not, electricity from the grid is still cheaper.
Thank god nobody had hydrogen station at home
5 litres per 100km is far from truth, 8 would be closer to reality assuming you drive in cities too
Exactly. Some Norwegian tested the car. Rated range was 550 km but they managed to get only 350 km. That's about 50 % higher consumption than on paper:
www.side3.no/motor/test-toyota-mirai-hydrogenbil/3423203698.html
+Bjørn Nyland, Henrix98 ment the consumption of the fossil fuel car... which is far from ideal 5l/100km, so the price of driving fossil fuel car is about one third more expensive as you calculated...
Hydrogen cars are even worse, quite a waste of the human and natural resources...
Haha. My 4.0l Territory avgs 14l per 100km in our hilly city, 11l per 100km is the best it gets :D
I drive a Skoda Rapid with a 1.2 litre petrol engine. Average consumption including lots of full throttle Autobahn driving (210Km/h top speed) is 6l/100. Engine is a 4 cylinder TSI and it has a 7 speed DSG transmission. Considering installing LPG/CNG on it as a Dutch company (Prins AutoGas) has developed a LPG-Di (directly injected LPG). Will have better range than BEV or HY car of similar size, and running costs will be much lower. Car is located in Poland where LPG/CNG is plentiful and cheap.
Arh, I do not buy that argument because you are unable to charge at home. I can think of many reason why hydrogen is better 1) the car weight less 2) no charging cables in the car 3) longer range 4) quick refill 5) and looking at this from an environmental point of view - the cobalt is found in deadly mines in Africa where people risk their lives for this, and 6) as you mentioned you lose 1% capacity for every 10.000km. Or what do you think?
1) Hydrogen cars are barely lighter than EVs.
2) So what?
3) Tesla Model S has the same range as a Toyota Mirai
4) Just charge at night at a public charger in your street.
5) Guess what, there is cobalt in the batteries of a fuel cell car and platinum in the fuel cell itself
6) Guess what, fuel cells degrade over time as well and last shorter than an EV battery
@Jonny Nobody It will be many decades before there is enough renewable energy available to justify the horribly low efficiency of hydrogen cars.
Björn...I usually agree with you on most thing. But for this one i think you need to do your homework.
One thing you mention is that you charge at home over night. .. but many people don't have that option.
You miss my main point. People who can't charge at home... they should buy fossil car. It's cheaper than hydrogen.
I'm guessing that those people live in apartment style homes?
Bjørn Nyland Lets leave that to the buyer.
remliqa correct.
Even fewer people have any Hydrogen options. The closest Hydrogen station to my house is around 1000 miles away.
To this day the main Source of Hydrogen is Fossil methane gas. To get the Hydrogen you have to get rid of the Carbon which leads to CO2 Emissions. To get two Hydrogen molecules you basically produce one CO2 molecules.
The main problem with hydrogen is infrastructure... to transition from ICE to a better technology, the infrastructure has to be there. Electricity is almost everywhere... almost. Hydrogen is very limited. So you’d have to build the whole infrastructure out. Even if you don’t fill at home, all petrol stations need to be converted to hydrogen. Electric doesn’t require that
Well the first flat screen TV was $30,000 now they are less than the old ones!
John P, hugely inefficient ? ICE=19% fuel cell=65% non mobile fuel cell 95%
If you are discounting the energy conversion don’t forget the energy to mine and refine oil.
And the fact that hydro electric,geothermal electric, solar, wind. Can be used in electrolysis .
NG to Hydrogen is extremely efficient and cheap. The US has 100 years of NG energy at current gas usage. The oil industry flares it of as a nuisance
Google and many other progressive Co. Have already paid back the capital investment on their Bloom box fuel cells within a year with the money they saved on electricity!
The Bloom box reforms the Co2 out and it is collected as graphite.
The lack of round-trip efficiency is actually the most difficult, intractable problem for hydrogen. Various other things are real problems, but potentially solvable (for example, with storage in nanostructured metal hydrides).
I can think of possible niches, maybe in large transport vehicles, or in stationary energy storage at high latitudes, but there are still difficult problems, and there are always other options that seem like much less trouble overall.
Electricity to make H2. Loss of power in the generation. H2 convert to electricity: loss of power. Cost to transport, distribute (geography of station) and inconvenience (we have 3 stations in San Jose California region, nearest to me is 5 miles): loss os range. Ugh. Tesla model 3 sits in the garage and charges. Will go over 300 mile on a charge (real time). Agree, if they started 30 or 40 years ago, maybe...naahh
Let’s see we pump oil out of the ground (energy pollution) flared of the NG (pollution then we ship (energy) it. Then we use heat to separate and refine it,(energy big time) additives and stabilizers (pollutants)then ship it (energy)to distribution sights then ship it(energy) to gas stations.
The only good news is it was already in the ground!
Oh bought or leased the land and ruined it!
larryenok Hydrogen can be produced at a gas station from water and electricity.
sweinberger That's fair, tbh hydrogen cars don't make a huge. amount of sense, but to say they need similar infrastructure to petroleum, that hydrogen needs to be transported is inaccurate.
But those EV's have to haul around those heavy batteries. Got to look at the whole system result. I wouldn't want to sit still for a half hour to charge - and most people perceive time sitting still while traveling to be twice as long as it actually is.
50€ for 500 kilometres? I'd say not bad for a brand new technology.
Seems to me like a smear campaign against Fcv's, reminds me of edison talking trash about AC
I don’t want hydrogen car piss all over the winter roads! ❄️❄️❄️🚖💥🚗
Maybe a more objective starting point would have been a good idea when you've already made your own choice - by calling H2-cars bullshit because you're chosen differently isn't serious.
Great that you've found heaven in your Tesla, but not all car owners have the ability to charge at home like you do. I live in an apartment and can't park my car underneath my windows having the extension cord dangling outside! As of now, I've got 6 kms to the nearest E-On charger, and 4 kms to the nearest Clever charger, how would that work for me in every day life...!?!
I totally agree that H2-cars doesn't seem optimal with the distances that you have in Norway, but here in Denmark which isn't neally as far from one end to the other, you could drive a H2-car from one end to the other without even topping up the tank!! - And still, we've got 10 H2-stations here already!! :-D
Hyunday is launching their new NEXO (which by the way is named after a Danish city, did you know that?) in Norway soon - you even filmed it at the airport in another video of yours. Here in Denmark we have to wait a little longer for the future of alternative fueled cars due to unclear taxation, but I'm defanetily going to try it when it arrives at the dealer :-)
You can fill up at home there is a product that turns your water into hydrogen for your car
Hydrogen is best used for non mobile applications for energy storage, not for small vehicles.
RobertJLessard that is true now but if we support it the potential is utopian!
Check the arguments.
My first flat screen was $30,000!
I remember all the naysayers in 2006 regarding EVs . We had engineers telling us it was impossible. It defies the laws of thermal dynamics
Now we have EVs charging in 15 min and ranging 500 miles.
The problem is not infrastructure or your argument it is the EV battery tec will be so good the HFC won’t get developed
Why so much hate on this video based on TRUE FACTS. People are too sensible to hear things they dont like, whether those are facts or just opinions. GOOD JOB Bjørn
This hydrogen station went up in flames today: www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/zG9Bxw/eksplosjon-paa-hydrogenstasjon-i-sandvika-ekstremt-hoeyt-smell
It's hard to think Toyota didn't think of these arguments before they started pursuing Hydrogen propulsion technologies. They skipped on EVs. I think Hydrogen technology will improve much further to the point it becomes mainstream.
Most commercial hydrogen (over 95%) does not come from water (electrolysis) but from oil, gas and coal. One ton of hydrogen generates about 10 tones of CO2. So that is also a big minus for hydrogen.
You obviously didn't read the sign on the pump that said that the Hydrogen was produced by Hydro Power, not Oil.
Just like most electricity to charge your battery car comes from Oil, coal and gas.
Let's not forget that the hydrogen fuel tank has an expiration date which is not really that long. If you're thinking of keeping this kind of car for 10 or 15 years, you may actually be shocked that you have to replace the tank. Some owners are reporting nearly two to three thousand dollars for this replacement. This happens with any pressurized vessel, it will expire and you will have to replace it. And the case of these cars, I am fairly certain that the car will itself disallow you to put more fuel into the tank after a certain point.
You are missing how the Electric in EV cars are made
People are convinced that we are highly connected to the filling up in five minutes model. But once you start every morning with a full tank the idea of taking even 5 minutes out of your day to drive to a gas station one or twice a week sounds like a total waist of time.
yet we waste a shitload of time on smartphones and are worried about 5 minutes of recharge smh
you cannot refuel hydrogen at home."
You can't refuel petrol at home either...
also, what if you don't own a house and you live in an apartment ? :)
yea lost alot of respect for this guy in this video lol. theres no reason to be against hydrogen (until someone dies from crashing and their car exploding because of it)
there are some reasons to be against electric cars, my main reason is the battery, the manufacture and transportation of these raw materials pollute alot, but make the battery 10% of the size and put a fuel cell in there and its much better.
in countries with net positive energy it's totally viable to use electrolysis, I operate 2 electrolytes for hydrogen manufacture at work in Norway and we only have hydroelectric dams giving us power.
If countries would swap out coal for wind/nuclear they could easily make hydrogen without damaging the environment
use the fucking apartments plug to charge it. electricity is universally available anywhere on planet earth
Nice that you made a video about it, but I have to contradict.
Ithink H2 has still a future.
1. Hydrogen prices will drop as soon as more people will buy it.
2. Hydrogen cars will be cheaper as soon as they develop and more people buy them.
3. It doesn't overheat that fast.
4. A big Li-Ion battery takes so many ressources to be built, that Hydrogen cars will be better for the environment than EV's
5. Scientists claim that unused wind or water energy can be stored much better in hydrogen tanks (converted from H2O to H2) than in batteries. Actually, very much energy produced by wind turbines overnight isn't used and has to be wasted by turning off windmills. That's also a point for hydrogen.
6. Hydrogen stations will spread all over the country soon, 20 years ago there were NO electric car chargers and now Tesla has Superchargers everywhere.
Whatever, I am not a scientist, but we'll have to wait for the hydrogen cars to develop, like EV's did 15 years ago.
EVS have been around for 120 years, so you might be waiting a while for hydrogen to reach the same level.
@@miguellopez3392 Yes they existed way before perrol cars, but from 1940-2000 they were literally forgotten.
@@derwolf200 fuel cells where invented in 1838 and didn't see real use till the 1960s
@@miguellopez3392 I think you can't know how it will develop. We'll see!
The main argument for hydrogen is that it has incredible energy density compared to batteries, which sidesteps the issue of improving battery tech
its less 7 times less than batterys ruclips.net/video/3IPR50-soNA/видео.html
hydrogen cars cannot compete with fossil fuel cars, because the hydrogen comes from the very same fossil resources out of the refineries. As long as the hydrogen is not coming from electrolysis a hydrogen car remains a fossil fuel car.
Fuel cell logic: We cannot all drive electric cars because we can't produce enough electricity. But needing three times the electricity to produce clean hydrogen by electrolysis to go the same distance as a pure EV is fine.
Producing gas for ICE vehicles consumes almost the same amount of electricity than driving an efficient EV. So the,, not enough electricity'' argument is not true, it's only a question of bringing the electricity to the chargers.
You are absolutely right that even the former argument is utter bollocks. Refining one litre of petrol alone takes about 1.6 kWh of electricity (figures may differ slightly). This alone easily powers an Hyundai Ioniq, compared to a fossil at 7 to 8 l/100km. Now take into account what else is needed to extract and transport oil, the environmental issues, spillages, and so on...
My brother , you might be right in your place , Hydrogen is on its basic stages , as the technology is getting better and better each day , it's gonna be better than electric cars , even electric cars where not cheap at its basic stages but now they are just because of upgrading of technology same as that the HFC cars will also get developed ☺️
You said that hydrogen cars "pee" all over the places , it is pure water
Yes Bjorn, you right. EV's is the best technology, because I can charge my car in my house with solar panels....Can I charge a hydrogen car in my house with solar panels???.....yes this is the big problem. Hydrogen is the perfect product for big companies, but no for humans.... EV is for humans. But, Tesla is a big company of EV, so this is the change. Thanks Tesla. Very late to Hydrogen and very very late to LPG... stupids technologies, the EV technology is here.
If you can't charge at home, get a fossil car. It's cheaper than hydrogen car, both to buy and to run. Then you have plenty of time left to do your shit.
Bjørn Nyland EV with Charge Stations for people without garage. Today is possible. Fossil Cars or Hybrid are not necessary. Maybe PHEV...is good.
ツ you can charge on the street, but if you haven't got point chargers, so PHEV. When you will go to the supermarket or IKEA...etc, you can charge free...
ツ It's not just the matter of popularity, it's production & logistics that're the problems. producing hydrogen is inherently expensive. lugging them around is inherently expensive. not to mention unlike liquid fossil fuels, which are just flammable (explosive only when a big quantity turned into gas), hydrogen is also inherently explosive. one puncture, one spark, is all it takes to get one tank blow up spectacularly.
I can buy a brand new cheap fossil car for the price of solar panels and storage. The future is ev, and I hope to join you, but to ignore the cost of dragging us fossil users to your way of thinking doesn't help.
I think hydrogen plug-in hybrid would be great if it could be done in reasonable price. 200 km realistic battery range to drive around the city and charging at home or fast charger + hydrogen fuel cell working as range extender for longer trips, so you could quickly fill the tank and continue driving. Another advantage of such car is that you wouldn't have to worry about hydrogen escaping from your tank - you fill it only for longer trips and use it all and for every day driving you just use battery.
Maybe for some applications in certain conditions Hydrogen could be the best choice.
In 2005, I compared the hydrogen car with the Salzburg Bull Washers. In the Middle Ages, the Salzburg fortress was besieged. In order to pretend to the besiegers still to have a lot of food, one led the same bull, but different colored, on the fortress wall every day.
In this case, the big car companies want to deceive the customers, "Look, we are working on environmentally friendly cars, wait a while"
Great information. The video don't feel long when you get good and correct information with so many interesting views of it, thanks Bjørn
You make a great practical argument against H2 cars. The other big reason is safety: a gas flame is ~960 C, but an H2 flame is ~2,600 C, roasting you in seconds. Years ago on a student job in a physics lab. a professor told me of a hushed-up accident at another lab where an H2 tank that fell off a stand to the ground and it its valve cracked open. The tank turned into a rocket and blasted through walls and stopped in reinforced concrete, luckily missing people. Who wants to take that chance in an accident?
Hydrogen is at the same stage now, that EV was a couple years back. It's a very young technology.
And the water exhaust in the winter problem is BS, ICE cars exhaust water as well.
EVs is older than ICE cars... hydrogen fuel cell cars is EVs but instead of having a big heavy lithium battery it'll use hydrogen.... Toyota said that if we produce more hydrogen then these cars would be very cheap to run (they make hydrogen from waste)
dunhillsupramk3 true, but what I'm trying to say is that the way Bjørn is complaining is the same way of thinking when people complain about EVs
Slight problem with that graphic at 7:15 it deducts 10% AC transmission losses for EV’s but not hydrogen production. That electricity used to produce hydrogen doesn’t come from nowhere so there should be an additional 10% loss for the hydrogen vehicles. Also if you have local generation on your home such as solar you can remove that 10% loss for EV charging.
How do you make Hydrogen?
You either make it by pumping 5x the amount of power into it compared to your EV, then use power to pump and pressurize it, then reverse the process for a 20% efficiency compared to the amount of power the Hydrogen provides.
*OR*
You make it in the refining process of petroleum products, which means that it's fundamentally linked to the price of gasoline, considering that even at the increased price of oil it's still a cheaper solution to electrolysis means that it isn't removing our dependency on oil. Which is exactly what the oil companies want.
So... yeah, the problem with Hydrogen is that it requires far too much power, or doesn't resolve our usage of oil.
You say "5 times the power into it ?" ? Wrong !
"producing 1 kg of hydrogen (which has a specific energy of 143 MJ/kg or about 40 kWh/kg)" with a range of 190 klm per kilo
versus
" Model S 85 KWh battery." - a range of say 350 klms
So, it is on par 190 klm per 40 watt for Hydrogen, 180 klm per 40 watts for Battery.
... and the Hydrogen only takes 3 minutes to fill up at the end of the trip.
and the hydrogen stops a lot faster without the heavy battery.
But most of all -
Hydrogen tank capacity: 122.4 liters total (fore tank: 60 liters, aft tank: 62.4 liters)
so the Range is FAR, FAR better than battery.
Making hydrogen at home would not be difficult but it would need much electricity (for the electrolyse and to compress the gaz) and it would make much much noise (compressor) so your neighbours will definitely HATE you . And to avoid to waste too much electricity it would be needed to use the heat of the compressor to heat a tank of water for home usage. And off course a tank is needed to store the hydrogen, and a device to send the hydrogen from the tank to the car, etc.
Solution: Put a bigger battery in the hydrogen car. Even better: put an even bigger battery in the hydrogen car. Oh, wait a minute...
Do I need to remind you that H is extremely explosive? And also incredibly hard to store?
+Sukru Murat Cebeci
That's actually a myth. Hydrogen as used in fuel cell vehicles isn't really any more explosive that Li-ion battery or even gasoline.
i drive a v8 truck and a toyota mirai is more expensive cost per mile than my truck
it was only made to get hydrogen credits, not to work
That's a poor argument.
BEV's are by far the cheapest per mile over the life of a car, even counting the cost of the battery, but that wasn't always the case. It takes a bit of foresight and development, but in the end it's worth it.
Cars weren't always cheaper per mile than horses, but that's also changed.
At the end of the day, the decision should be based on facts. ie. is it possible to make a hydrogen car more efficient than a BEV? Is the advantage of quick fuelling enough, and is it an advantage it's likely to keep (no)? What is the cost of providing the fuel in a clean way, whether from renewables or geothermal or hydro?
At the moment, there is a fundamental issue with hydrogen, and that is that the energy cost of producing it from clean sources is astronomical compared to BEV's, and BEV's have barely gotten started in terms of battery development and total system efficiency. The biggest issue with BEV's, is the battery. They are already better than ICE vehicles in literally every other way.
Plus, the infrastructure already mostly exists, with the exception of the plug that comes out of the ground.
fernando bullshit. I have 2 Mirais and they are the less expensive to operate than a 10 year old corolla. After lease payments and rebates it's .17 cents a mile INCLUDING FUEL, MAINTENANCE AND DEPRECIATION.
I got you all beat. I paid $400 for my 25MPG XJ and in three years I've spent a total of $2600 on parts, oil, gasoline, etc, total.
KC9UDX That's great, but someone had to buy it new for you to be able to buy it used.
New cars will always be required as old ones wear out, and we may as well make them as efficient as we can.
Here's a little history. Hydrogen cars actually started being sold 10 years ago here in the US - back in 2008. You don't hear much about them now since they've obviously lost the race. In the US, the first production hydrogen car, the Honda Clarity, was released in 2008, well before the first production EVs in 2011. Before Tesla entered the scene, EVs had nowhere near the range of a "fossil" car, and there was no such thing as a fast charger, so naturally hydrogen appeared to be the only real way forward. Then in 2012, along came Tesla and advanced EV technology to the point that hydrogen can no longer compete. I was at the Santa Monica Alt Car Expo in 2008 and I remember the hydrogen cars on display there. Back then, Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai were all on the hydrogen team and had invested a lot of money into developing hydrogen vehicles - but after seeing EVs leaving them in the dust, they eventually changed their mind.
Battery cars can be charge at home.
And what's the propose of spending electricity to produce hydrogen and then transform again the hydrogen in electricity again?!
Alexandre Fernandes well the energy grid can't handle all those eves
Yes it can! You don't need to charge at home during the night in 1 hour at 40KW. You can charge a 4KW over the night (10 hours).
The point is to try to have different choices of car and it’s use of power, I mean this is right now. In 10-20 years every thing can be better adapted and cheaper. The only reason hydrogen is expensive is becasue there is not that many hydrogen cars, they would not be marking any money if it was cheap, but when there is a lot of hydrogen cars in the future it might be cheaper
Why are you completely ignoring the people who can't charge at home? I live in an apartment in Oslo and the public chargers are always full. I got rid of my Tesla because I was tired of either driving to a supercharger or charging for ages at a Fortum (or similar) charging station. Hydrogen should definitely be an alternative until proper quick charging (the new CCS stuff) or public charging are available everywhere. Not being able to charge at home really is cumbersome for people who doesn't want to drive to Drammen to charge at a supercharger or wait for an hour at a slow Chademo-charger. I don't think I'm the only one in that situation.
You completely missed my major point. If you can't charge at home, don't get an EV. Buy a fossil car. It's cheaper than a hydrogen car.
Bjorn, I love your shows and somewhat addicted, but you've got this totally wrong. It's not really about cost. If it were only about cost we'd probably all just stick with fossil for the added convenience too. but it's actually about the environment...going green. As long as hydrogen (and BEV) get their energy from renewable source then they are the only solutions to consider...fossil is dead, or dying, being killed off by governments wanting cleaner city air. Batteries are not the way to go for long distance, typically commercial, applications. For this reason refuelling stations will eventually become hydrogen to satisfy the trucks and vans who cannot afford to be out of action for charging. Batteries are also just too heavy to be the solution for long distance. Once the hydrogen refuelling is commonplace many, many people will choose the easier one-off refuelling similar to their fossil experience rather than constantly having to plug in either at home or at the shops. Super-fast chargers are an odd solution to the battery driving distance. It's potentially very unsafe to have 800V and 200A (160kW) in the hands of the general public. Unfortunately I don't think it will be long before one of these electrocutes someone. Funny I think we still consider mains electricity dangerous and that's only 240V 13A. Hydrogen will eventually overtake BEV as the energy of choice, it's just a pity a lot of money will have been wasted trying to force the battery-only solution as the one to adopt.
Even Toyota is slowly abandoning hydrogen.
My info if you're interested in fuel economy;
My old gas Car (Mercedes A class (the old one)) could go 800km with 40 liters of gas. Thats about 60-70€ of gasoline. So roughtly 8€/100km.
My current Car (Hyundai Ionic EV) can go 200km (as listed, but I drive carefully so I can easily make 250 with it). Setting aside the fact that I have solar panels so since I got the car I didn't pay anything,
I once drove 280km as a little road trip. I charged at a supercharger twice (battery wasn't full when starting).
It cost me a total of 3,13€ for the 280km trip. Lets say 300km, cause I drove off to McDonalds as well. Thats 3,13€ for 300km. Thats 1€/100km.
And as Bjórn said its roughtly 50€/500km on a hydrogen car. In this specific case at least.
Bottom line: For me with my driving style if I charge at a public Supercharger with a card everyone can just get (NewMotion).
Hydrogen car costs 10€/100km
My gas car costs 8€/100km
My EV costs 1€/100km
Not even mentioning the service cost. Last big inspection for my gas car was 376€. Last big inspection for my EV was 74€.
I love my EV.
And well, regarding the discussion from the video;
A Hydrogen car is essentially a EV, but with a Hydrogen Cell ontop.
Terrible Energy conversion. Bleh. And ontop of that you need to periodically replace ALL Hydrogen parts in these cars, because the Pipes, Tank, Cell, everything breaks down from the Hydrogen. (Something like that) Roughly every 240K Km all of the technical blab needs to be replaced. Oof.
And guys, just because it says an EV battery has an 8 year warranty, doesnt mean its instantly dead after 8 years.
Did your toaster immediately break after its 6 Month warranty expired? I think not. The manufacturers are so extremely confident with their batteries that they say if anything happens to it in 8 years(!) you get a new one. (well, or typically 200K miles)
Friendly reminder: I have 86 solar panels. My Ioniq can recharge in 4 hours at 7,4Kw (28kw/h batterie) I can go to work for 1,5 weeks with a full batterie. So If i charge once on a sunday thats enough.
I didn't pay a single cent for my way to work since I got the car.
If you should reply, please, please be constructive.
You sound like the electric car naysayers from 10 years ago.lol.
Nope. Can't be compared. Watch the video again to understand why. For example: Hydrogen cars can't be filled up at home unlike EVs.
Indeed with the same unwillingness to the unknown.
Naysayers like those were struck down in less than 10 years with irrefutable proof, addressing EVERY SINGLE problem they put forth with EV, all but recharging time. back then it was only a will to move that whole thing forward. the tech was there, the resources were there. but hydrogen, the tech ain't exactly here, the resources, well... it ain't all that different from fossil fuels... & then, you can't do shit about the nature of hydrogen--VERY volatile explosive. gasoline & diesel cars don't blow up easily even when they leak fuel. they catch fire. & that itself was dangerous enough. hydrogen needs ONLY one spark to BLOW UP. a fuel leak will turn utterly disastrous very quickly.
Not at all. I have checked lots of facts and found it to be useless. The problem with EVs 10 years ago was that there was just fossil car as the only alternative. But today you can choose between fossil or EV instead of hydrogen. If 10 years ago, EVs had poor range, no refueling stations AND hydrogen had great range, lots of models to choose between and massive refueling stations everywhere as well as the option to refuel at home, THEN it would be the same case.
The realitiy is this:
Electric car naysayers talking bullshit, not using facts, instead contradicting themselved in regard to real facts all the time.
Hydrogen car naysayers presenting facts and numbers that clearly shows how bad this idea is.
Then: some stupid moron appears and compares both naysayers and declares they are the same.
Me: facepalm.
The whole point is that once the oil starts to run out and the world faces economic and industrial collapse, things like hydrogen will suddenly become VERY viable options. Replace every gas refinery with a solar-powered electrolysis plant and the supply is easily achieved.
Thanks for doing all those conversions, it really helps to understand the price difference!
About 10 years ago the US Government announced they were no longer funding research of hydrogen fueled vehicles specifically because there was no energy and cost efficient way to produce hydrogen. They would in a limited way fund hydrogen research. There are many advantages that could exist IF there could be a fundamental shift in the ratio of electricity required to produce a unit of hydrogen.
In an ideal sense hydrogen can be stored at far lower cost than batteries. Another factor is that there is a massive loss in transmitting electricity over long distances, primarily from creation of waste heat. IF it was practical, hydrogen can be produced at the source of power, a big advantage for remote wind farms where the cost of transmission lines is greater than the wind turbines or solar farms or hydro power in remote areas.
So it is not that hydrogen cars and trucks are bad, but rather could be wonderful . What continues to be the problem is the current cost which reflects the very issue that caused the US to pull the plug. We need to solve the issue of hydrogen production. If that ever gets solved then everything Bjorn said will be true of BEV. Unless and until hydrogen makes no sense.
Hydrogen fuel cells
The argument that it is expensive is very short sited. I have solar panels on my roof and make my own hydrogen and fill my hydride tank converting water to hydrogen . Also where I work they have a bloom box it converts NG. My company has recouped the the capital investment in the first year of savings on electricity from the grid. We also sequester the Co2 and have a agreement with industries to purchase the gas for less than they were paying elsewhere.
Hydroelectric, wind, solar and cracking NG are all viable sustainable and non polluting.
As of now Hydrogen storage outlasts battery storage both in capacity and in the longevity of the appliance.
The main argument against hydrogen was platinum. The need for rare and expensive platinum coated electrodes as a catalyst for oxidation reaction has been replaced in non mobile applications with ceramic electrodes. Cheap and infinite source. The replacement for mobile electrodes while still in development will be graphene or carbon nano tubes which now also have a large scale cost effective manufacturing process.
The thing that will kill fuel cells is the solid state electrolyte in batteries.(not yet available ) This advancement will allow fast charging,long range and stable battery life making the fuel cell a difficult competitive alternative.
The Japanese have invested big time in both mobile and grid fuel cells. This may keep the competition going enough for its viability
You’re questions are all answered in this commentary. “The fuel cell does not have enough acceleration” wrong that depends on the size of the cell relative to the payload.
A battery is not necessary it is just practical at this point. ‘Expensive” I make mine from solar!. NG (natural gas) is cheap and abundant here in the US and the conversion is efficient and clean (cracking NG in a reformer fuel cell sequesters the Co2 into solid waste (graphite a byproduct that can be sold). Don’t make your conclusion based on current pricing. “Hard to transport”? I guess you are referring to the pressure for liquification? NG is moved as a gas in pipe lines at ambient temperatures in the US a majority of homes and businesses in The US have pipelines for NG. A home ceramic fuel cell can convert NG to LH (liquid hydrogen ) for domestic use as well as mobile. At 65-95% efficiencies when heat waste provides hot water and heating or cooling for the home and electricity at lower rates than the utility. The LH can be stored to fill your car or you can fill it straight from the Reformer fuel cell.( this takes a while but is a good option when you can afford the time. Equivalent to charging batteries.)
your comment was very informative....
but just a few things, i think it was Toyota a few mts ago has got a solid state battery tech (they're still saying that hydrogen is the way forward) maybe they plan to use this new battery tech on hydrogen car to add a small battery of a range of like 10mi (this will give power on demand while the hydrogen fuel cell takes it sweet time to ramp up, also used for regen from brakes)....
also idk if you know but there is "solar panels" that use sometype of algae and it produces hydrogen, its much more efficient than a solar panel at adsorbing the sun and you can stack them on eachother (its still newish and they're installed on a few building and so far its working out great) so i can see ppl using this to make hydrogen at home in the near future....
Hydrogen just diffuses through pretty much everything, so it's very difficult to contain. Also making hydrogen by electrolysis is rather inefficient. Maybe making hydrogen from waste biomass is a alternative. But I don't think it is a good technology for mass use. There may be a bunch of niche uses though where improvements of the technology can pay off. For example I could imagine farmers to power their vehicles with hydrogen they make. Or charge a EV with the electricity they make with their hydrogen.
I Love When He says "Oh Sheeet" XD btw 1:00
The diagramm at 7:17 ... is really interesting! If you read this correct and you know, that a gasoline or diesel car have had also an efficiency of maximum 16% ... than the solution and changing to full electrical car is so clear and necessary! Thanks!
Oxidising hyrogen to water is exothermic and produces heat. This heat is then lost to the system, ie, wasted energy aka ice engines.
Wow i've never seen a comparison which is so bad as yours. ice engines have a lot of greenhouse and toxic gasses, which fuel cells don't.
Mathieu, yes, you are right. Fuel cells are generally between 40-60% energy efficient, better than ic @ 25%, but way behind batteries.
The home fuel cell is 95% efficient as the waste heat is cooled by water so you automatically have hot domestic water and you can heat your home or use heat to cool your home.
The NG is cracked in a reformer before entering the fuel cell. And is sequestered on the spot.
The price of NG is far less than the cost of the electricity. The availability rates of NG are not subject to peek rate charges!
ICEs have had waste heat the entire history of the automobile. It’s a shame if you consider the temperature of the exhaust manifold and the catalytic converter(700 -1200 degrees)
All the H H O enthusiast who are trying to get better gas mileage by using the alternator to split water and subsidies fuel should consider using the catalytic converter incorporated in the loop.
Roger Starkey the fuel cell is water cooled just like the ICE. The ICE actually puts out hotter exhaust do to the catalytic reaction of unspent gas fumes!
All of the hydrogen is is recombined which oxidation resulting in water vapor and no un combusted fumes as a result and if there were they would not be pollutants.
Dana, fuel cells in the home can recover the waste heat energy to heat your home. This heat is lost to the system if hydrogen is burnt in a fuel cell in a car, and thus is generally a bad idea in vehicles. Fuel cell cars are not lighter than evs, and the fill/charge time is similar.
Overall, fuel cells in cars are adistant 2nd to batteries.
For mass adoption of EVs you will need to install hundreds of thousands of charging points for a city, but you only need a few H2 refuelling station then you can serve the whole city. Also, for cities like Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong, most people live in flats and it is impossible to install charging points at every parking bays. H2 is clearly the answer for these places if we are to replace all ICE cars by 2040.
Good points. Glad you mentioned the big energy waste of hydrogen generation and distribution. IMO, this is the biggest reason to use BEV instead of hydrogen. Hydrogen needs a few more decades of research before it would make sense to use. But in 2 or 3 decades we'll probably have next generation batteries which are cheap, light, can be recharged instantly, and hold way more energy.
What range does the Tesla have during the winter? Hydrogen cars have the range, but battery cars can't really increase their range much more because if you add 20 miles worth of heavy battery, you have to haul it around for 300 miles before you can utilize that last bit of capacity.
Mirai has 550 km NEDC range. In winter it reported only 340 km:
www.side3.no/motor/test-toyota-mirai-hydrogenbil-4349800
Hydrogen cars uses Li-ion batteries aswell (smaller tho).
The platinium catalyst used in fuel cells will last only about 150000km.
The efficiency for converting by electrolysis electricity to H2 and then H2 to electricity in the embedded fuel cell has a global efficiency of 30%.
The charge/discharge efficiency of a Li-ion battery is about 94% (including the charger losses). So it's more efficient to put electrons directly in a battery than converting it into hydrogen.
Here in Bremen we have one hydrogen refuelling station, too. But they are even worse: they manufacture hydrogen by splitting it from oil. For some applications, i can see the point for it. But for cars and most Lories an ev makes so much more sense.
Total number of EVs in Norway, updated today is: 167 896
Soon the licence plates will say EV too.
Battery EV came well over 100 years ago and even before the combustion engine cars, but could not compete with engine cars. Likewise, with the world's biggest car companies like Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, Audi gearing up to produce Fuel Cell cars, then perhaps Battery EV might be pushed back yet again.
batteries by nature wouldn't be as efficient... here is the thing all the companies you just mention is giants in the automotive industry (and i know for a fact that Toyota currently have better battery tech than Tesla) but yet all of them is saying that hydrogen is the future....
Use hydrogen for fusion (when the scientists get round to it) and then use that to power electric vehicles
We already have sufficient electricity.
Walter Rudich No we don’t. What we have is not clean electricity, about 70% is pollution based
The problem with batteries is that they go bad after a like 5-6 years, especially if you use fast charging
They barely do. Ever heard of fuel cell degradation?
@@Simon-dm8zv yes
Isak Johansson good
lpg is cheaper!!
In germany a couple of VW Touran cars that ran on natural gas (methane) exploded at gas stations - no flames involved (luckily). The tank pressure alone which is around 200 bars (~3000psi destroyed the car. Those cars (or what remained of them) didnt look very good. Imagine standing right next to it. Hydrogen is stored with 600 bars (10.000psi).
Also Hydrogen is very volatile, reacts with anything, hard to store, expensive and ineffective to create, we can't see it, can't smell it and making it available to every dumb idiot at every gas station everywhere seems dangerous and just isn't a good idea.
But I like Hydrogen. Most common element in the universe. Use it for busses, military vehicles, planes and helicopters, rockets and space vehicles - stuff like that. Things not everybody has access to.
You remind me of ppl who use petrol and diesel cars, thats the arguments they used when electric cars came about.
Why don't you just accept we can use diffrent energy technology everything takes time and money. WE DON'T NEED NEGATIVITY.
We don't need to follow one type of fuelling system, these conversations/Videos always end with my way is the best way.
Good vid ++++
Basically, think of Hydrogen vs. EV this way:
- In an EV, you store the energy from the power plant, electrically delivered by the ubiquitous electricity infrastructure.
- In a H2V, you store the energy you put into making the hydrogen, physically delivered by the H2 infrastructure that needs to be built.
Even if you spend the Trillions necessary to make H2 infrastructure ubiquitous, it is always going to be more efficient, easier, quicker, and cheaper to move electrons, than electrons, protons, neutrons, and whatever container is containing them.
EV technology will become more efficient with greater energy storage / kg. Hydrogen cant really get more efficient than it currently is.
"I guess it wasn't Hindenburg..." made my day! :)
I am from India. EV infra IS GETTING DEVELOPED HERE TOO. But the major concerns for a person like me is the driving range .... As I drive around 800-1000 km in a single day while on a trip, and in such case I will need to charge the EV twice. If I need to wait for say 1-2 hrs to full charge my EV, it will add up 3-4 hrs in my journey which isnt viable for such long distances.
Same could be the issue with the US people who support Hydrogen.
yes but then again, are you ready to pay more than you already pay for petrol/diesel (already exorbitant in india) only to have a car which cannot refuel ANYWHERE?
while yes the EV adds 3-4 hours to the trip time, for H2 this trip time is infinite because no H2 station. If you thought EV DCFC stalls were costly at 15L a piece for 30kW, wait till you hear about the price of single dispenser H2 stations (north of $1M thats 8 crore INR)
Further, since there are so few H2 stax in Cali, the lines are long, since 1M only gets you one dispenser while it can get you 10 tesla superchargers. Wait is long for consequent fillings because the gas laws show that when the tank at station fills a car, its pressure drops, it needs to repressurise the H2 bunk at the station and chill it again (needs massive amounts of electricity and 10-30min depending on how much H2 was sold to the previous vehicle
Not to mention, that H2 cars are very poor on interior space, the Mirai gets 250L boot which is 1/3rd that of model S which gets same 500km at same retail price and much cheaper running cost.
Even my nexon ev has 350L boot
SO faster refilling on highway trips is moot if you cant even sit in comfort on the rear bench and the boot takes less luggage than the avg hatchback in India
RN, we have Ioniq 5 and EV6 which offer same range (500km) as mirai for cheaper than mirai costs (both ioniq 5 and ev6 are same price as USA and in USA, the two are quite a bit cheaper than mirai)
Ugg. I read about that it can be a 1 hour wait for the pump to work. And also the price is to high. I think I heard new tanks with metalfoam inside could take more kg per volume. And they dont have power regeneration I guess. A small batterypack so it can regen with higher efficiency would be nice. Combining hydrogen and a big batterypack would only work on trucks. Well. Electricity is the future. We need those fusion reactors!
Sure, you can refuel quickly, but it's there's inefficiencies in making H2 from electricity, then making electricity from H2 in the car. Until you can produce H2 at home from your own PV, cheaply, as far as I'm concerned it doesn't solve all our problems. Whereas you can buy, right now, solar plus battery plus EV car, and it all works.
Everything is better than keep using oil
If they wanted to lure people in they should at least lower the cost of hydrogen so that it's cheaper than gas until enough people have bought fuel cell cars. The fact that they don't do that tells me no one is taking this serious.
Electricity to produce hydrogen to produce electricity?
That is truly a WTF! moment lol
Yes. And hydrogen's far more dense than a LiIon battery. It's effectively a battery, in it's own way.
Jean-Pierre White energy dense
Jean-Pierre White hydrogen fuel is ridiculously energy dense compared to lithum ion. 141.86 mj/kg vs 0.95 mj/kg.
+Gip-Gip Sr.
Ans still far less efficient.
remliqa not really. Hydrogen cars just use far smaller tanks
A hydrogen car may not be for you but that doesn't mean they are bullshit. Not everyone has off street parking; my car is parked in the street so a home charger is not an option for me. Being able to fill a hydrogen car as easily as my ICE would be a great advantage.
If EV is not for you then go for fossil. They are cheaper. That's why hydrogen is bullshit.
Get solar panels, get an EV and set yourself free.
Easy and cheap, especially considering that for buying solar panels you need a roof to put them on... and walls sustaining this roofs... oops, that's what's called a house (minimum $500.000 - sorry I live in Switzerland, houses are expensive). I forgot the car ($90.000 if it's Tesla Model S, 85kWh battery pack, $180.000 with 100kWh battery pack, at least $50.000 for any other model,...).
Between $600.000 and $700.000... easy and cheap I said...
Sounds great but it's not free. You need to buy the solar set up and then buy the car which is not cheap. Most people can't afford to do it which is why we have to buy second/third hand petrol cars. 30k+ for an EV is for the rich only. And exactly how many years would it take to offset that cost before it really becomes free?.
You were so right. For an English article see Insideevs: "Hydrogen Fueling Station Explodes: Toyota & Hyundai Halt Fuel Cell Car Sales:" It starts with: "Blast was so big it set off airbags in nearby cars. A hydrogen refueling station exploded and stood in flames yesterday in Sandvika, Norway, [...], Because of that, Uno-X closed its two other stations with hydrogen in Norway, while carmakers - Toyota and Hyundai - temporarily stopped sales of FCVs." insideevs.com/news/354223/hydrogen-fueling-station-explodes/